[uf-dev] Re: [uf-new] Microformats parsing, in general (was: hAudio final draft)

[Tantek Ç elik]

On 6/19/07 4:05 PM, "David Janes" <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com> wrote:

> On 6/19/07, Scott Reynen <scott at randomchaos.com> wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused by this thread now, but it seems we agree that the
>> current inability of publishers to indicate scope is a problem, and
>> MFO is a potential solution.  Is that correct?  If so, I think we
>> need to openly discuss the semantics of MFO (i.e. follow the process)
>> before we get into a more limited discussion of how to parse MFO.  I
>> don't think it's ready to parse at all yet, so I'm not sure why it's
>> on -dev.
> 
> I moved my response to -dev since that's where Tantek tried to move it
> earlier, twice I believe, and I don't see any particular reason to
> disagree that.

It's on -dev because this is first and foremost a discussion or parsing,
because we are focusing on the discussion of the problem, rather than the
discussion of the solution.  It's a subtle distinction but an important one,
which often gets forgotten (especially with typical new proposals with
microformats which seem to almost always prematurely jump to solution
discussions before problems are properly documented - especially on the
wiki).


> MFO is only particular potential solution for a bigger problem which
> you'll have to trace back through this discussion thread to read.
> Briefly, there's problems reusing uF elements because they could
> potentially be incorrectly associated with the wrong semantic object.

Which, I would say, at this point, if you want more time/focus/energy spent
solving those problem(s), start to document URLs on the wiki to real world
examples that demonstrate the problem.  Enough with the theory in email.

Tantek