[microformats-discuss] Re: Educationg Others

[Scott Anderson]

On 10/4/05, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
> I get the feeling that microformats does *not* map cleanly onto your
> desired usage model.   Yes, clearly microformats *do* need to become
> more robust, better documented, and more explicitly specified.
> However, I'm getting a sense that you're saying:
>
> "Microformats as they are now are pretty useless for my purposes, so
> please make them more like a rigorous XML schema."
>

I think microformats are of limited use to me. It is not because of a
lack of xml schemas (or their equivalent). I can work around
that...more of a productivity issue.

I am having problems understanding the intended applications for
microformats. The examples I have seen from others are not compelling
value adds. I would like to be able to inspect an XHTML document and
be able to understand its semantics using some additional contextual
meta data in the same way that google site maps are used to understand
the structure of a web site.

> Is that the message you intend to convey?   While that's certainly a
> valid point of view (and we have something to learn from that), I get
> the feeling that you don't quite (yet) understand the 'zen' of
> microformats, or why those issues which appear central to you are in
> fact quite peripheral to the main attraction of microformats.
>

It is true that I don't understand the zen of microformats. I am
simply applying my experience as to how interface designers and
content providers would want to adopt this technology in attempt to
understand what type of tools they might need.

> I'm not saying that's your fault -- we as a community have a long way
> to go in terms of articulating things more clearly, despite Tantek's
> heroic work to date.  However, I suspect that there's a major
> difference between what you want and where the community is, and
> trying to 'force-fit' the two -- at least right now -- could lead to
> mutual frustration.
>

It is true that I don't know where the community is.

> I'd love to be proved wrong, but I also wanted to sound a cautionary
> note lest these misunderstandings get out of hand.
>

Thanks.