[microformats-discuss] FW: [process] and blog-description-format

[Tantek Ç elik]

Regarding:

 http://microformats.org/wiki/blog-description-format

I have just gotten a chance to take a look at it, and left a few comments on
the wiki page, but realized I should provide more explicit feedback points
here on the list to encourage folks to better follow the microformat
principles/process.


In general:

PLEASE read http://microformats.org/wiki/process before and *during* any
proposal of any microformat.

If there's anywhere that the process and principles seem unclear,
please feel free to ask.


In particular:

1. Research must use existing examples. The examples in the background
research document (blog-description-format) are theoretical illustrative
documents, and that's inappropriate for background research.  Examples in a
background research document MUST be from existing web
pages/services/products.

2. DO NOT propose a microformat before performing and documenting the
relevant background research first.

3. Background research pages should not contain draft proposals.

4. For *any* microformat proposal having to do with a blog, try using the
the proposed microformat markup *on your own blog* and see how it works.  Do
this *first*, *before* proposing it.  You might find that doing so points
out problems which can be iterated on, without having to write up a proposal
etc.

5. Many folks have been iterating (per 4.) for a few years, and perhaps feel
they haven't reached a format good enough to propose as a standard.  This is
why it is important to follow points 1. and 2.  Research includes not just
looking at markup/code examples and deconstructing them into implicit
schema, but also reading people's writings/blog posts about the subject.

6.In contrast to 

 http://microformats.org/wiki/blog-description-format

take a look at:

 http://microformats.org/wiki/blog-post-formats

not much is there yet, but it is definitely following the process.


Thanks,

Tantek