[uf-discuss] hAtom and blog-post-* need some more work

[David Janes -- BlogMatrix]

Dr.Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Dec 31, 2005, at 9:58 AM, David Janes -- BlogMatrix wrote:
>> I don't even have the slightest idea how to respond to this. I've been
>> working on hAtom since August (hardly a rush), constantly soliciting
>> feedback, documenting progress and descions, recently providing code, 
>> and so forth. Now suddenly a new there's some new microformat 
>> principles -- not appearing on the Wiki in any obvious place or 
>> (particularly) the process page.
> 
> I certainly affirm your efforts to play by the rules and solicit input.  
> I think what Tantek may be reacting to was the perceived pressure to 
> "formalize" hAtom as an official microformat.  I think you've done a 
> fantastic job of documenting 'hAtom' per se, but there are valid 
> concerns about taking it to the next level.

Sure, and I've been consistently soliciting input on the nomenclature 
for a blog post microformat and changes have been made ... "bookmark", 
for example ... based on this input.

Furthermore, I have no issues with debating and or changing the 
nomenclature involved. For example, two or three days ago I explained 
the options that were available to us for the various elements, the 
precedence of HTML is using the word "title" or "heading" to mean 
"title" and why the word "summary" is particularly ill-suited in the the 
blog world for describing a title. (Direct responses: 0)

If there's a process, it can be followed by anyone, even if everyone 
here went away and was replaced by some other group of people. If hAtom 
breaks the process in any sort of non-trite way, I'll be the first to 
say that we should change it. But if we're just debating terminology, 
well let us debate that as opposed to a broad statement that I've been 
trumped by precedent, process and principles of the community.

> 
>> I have no issue renaming elements in hAtom, as long as there's a
>> microformats process that I'm actually following -- something that I've
>> seriously attempt to do since the second week I've been on this list. 
>> I'm assuming the process is driven by documentation and discussion, 
>> and not by personality.
> 
> I think Tantek's principles are useful, and I agree they should be on 
> the wiki.  Are they? I'm not sure:

Well, have a look. By this is something that should be debated by the 
community -- if the principle is "one name/one meaning" and "first use, 
first dibs", lets discuss the pros and cons of that.

Strangely, I note that on the few discussions on namespaces (for 
example, [1]) the answer isn't "we don't need namespaces since we'll 
never reuse CSS classes to mean something different than a previous use".

> 
>>> Just because other standards keep inventing new terms for the same 
>>> thing,
>>> doesn't mean we should.
>>> We should actively AVOID inventing new terms for the same thing, even if
>>> those "new terms" come from other standards.
> 
> Thanks for all your efforts.

No sweat. Well, actually, quite a bit of sweat -- which is why it's 
nicer to hear "we should be doing this differently" two months in rather 
than 4.

Regards, etc...
David

[1] 
http://microformats.org/wiki/faqs-for-rdf#What_about_namespaces_for_the_attributes.2C_should_I_use_.22xxx:term.22.3F