namespaces bad topic for uf mailing lists reminder (was Re: [uf-new] Namespace anti-pattern and hAudio TITLE (was: hAudio FN or Title))
On 2/4/08 1:25 PM, Martin McEvoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Manu On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 15:17 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote: Then, I assert that your definition of what is and isn't a namespace is out of step with the common definition of a namespace If namespaces did exist in microformats? it would make it impossible to re-use other objects such as title in other microformats because names in namespaces can only be declared once and only have one contextual meaning? No one actually will admit to the existence of a namespace in microformats but there is lots of evidence suggesting otherwise. either intentional or not, Microformats MAY have created their own namespace of a kind I think? The problem is with this loose use of term namespace or namespace of a kind, not with microformats usage thereof which will result in endless semantic arguments which are not useful. and On 2/4/08 1:20 PM, Christopher St John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 4, 2008 4:05 PM, Brian Suda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We must be talking past one another with our definitions, it is probably best to start a wiki page and the discussion will not get lose between posts and threads. It will also make it easier for anyone to reference later. Continuing this thread will not be productive for very long. Actually, I've found it quite useful. Manu has brought up several points that I've been concerned about. I've almost chimed in a couple of times but Manu has beaten me to it and I've been reluctant to just post me too :-) Just because one person doesn't find a long and interesting thread productive doesn't mean it isn't productive for others. That may be true, however, we decided long ago, that this wasn't a good forum for having such discussions about namespaces - there are other forums where you may find more others that find long discussions about namespaces interesting. http://microformats.org/wiki/mailing-lists#bad-topic-namespaces Thanks, Tantek ___ microformats-new mailing list microformats-new@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
Re: namespaces bad topic for uf mailing lists reminder (was Re: [uf-new] Namespace anti-pattern and hAudio TITLE (was: hAudio FN or Title))
On Feb 4, 2008 5:08 PM, Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/4/08 1:25 PM, Martin McEvoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I've found it quite useful. Manu has brought up several points that I've been concerned about. I've almost chimed in a couple of times but Manu has beaten me to it and I've been reluctant to just post me too :-) Just because one person doesn't find a long and interesting thread productive doesn't mean it isn't productive for others. That may be true, however, we decided long ago, that this wasn't a good forum for having such discussions about namespaces - there are other forums where you may find more others that find long discussions about namespaces interesting. http://microformats.org/wiki/mailing-lists#bad-topic-namespaces (Much of) the discussion isn't about that kind of namespaces. It's about trying to clarify how the word used on the Wiki (in a very specific sense) has a more broadly accepted meaning that differs in important ways. The fact that no namespaces dogma makes little sense to people familiar with the general meaning suggests that clarification is important. Manu's post with references to the various meanings is probably something that should go up on the wiki. It's a productive contribution to the issue and a demonstration that dogmas should occasionally be pulled out from their glass case and given a good shaking. -cks -- Christopher St. John http://artofsystems.blogspot.com ___ microformats-new mailing list microformats-new@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
Re: namespaces bad topic for uf mailing lists reminder (was Re: [uf-new] Namespace anti-pattern and hAudio TITLE (was: hAudio FN or Title))
Tantek Çelik wrote: No one actually will admit to the existence of a namespace in microformats but there is lots of evidence suggesting otherwise. either intentional or not, Microformats MAY have created their own namespace of a kind I think? The problem is with this loose use of term namespace or namespace of a kind, not with microformats usage thereof which will result in endless semantic arguments which are not useful. Is that why you RESOLVED the issue without consulting the list first? http://microformats.org/wiki?title=namespaces-inconsistency-issuediff=25462oldid=25450 If Andy did something like that, he'd be up for another ban... With all due respect, Tantek - I was attempting to make the definition of namespace that the Microformats community uses far more accurate - to clarify the no namespaces stance that the community has. By shutting down the discussion, you've single-handedly pre-empted that improvement to the wiki. An improvement that would help new comers to this list and Microformats understand what we mean by no namespaces. It was an improvement that the community largely agrees with, but the namespaces page doesn't express[1]. You even agree to this sentiment in the e-mail you quote in the RESOLUTION section[2]. I'm disappointed that this discussion is being pre-emptively shut down... just when it seemed as if we were making progress. -- manu [1]http://microformats.org/wiki/namespaces [2]http://microformats.org/wiki/namespaces-inconsistency-issue#Resolution ___ microformats-new mailing list microformats-new@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
