[microformats-discuss] Re: XML & microformats (WAS: Take 3)

[Tantek Ç elik]

On 9/17/05 10:29 AM, "Lucas Gonze" <lucas.gonze at gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Sep 17, 2005, at 10:07 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
>>> If you already have an application context which uses HTML, and you
>>> want to benefit from third-party hacks, microformats are the one true
>>> solution.
>>> 
>>> The idea of replacing existing XML formats intended solely for machine
>>> processing with the equivalent semantic HTML strikes me as irrational
>>> exuberance.
>> 
> 
> On 9/17/05, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
>> I'll go along with that, but I was asking a slightly different
>> question (I think).   Is there any benefit to using the semantic
>> tagging of microformats *directly* in XML?  For example, should the
>> Atom community adopt "<link rel=tag>" or "<link rel=payment>" rather
>> than, say, adding "<tag>" or "<tipjar>" fields directly?
>> 
>> My impression was that Tantek was saying  "yes", but that the market
>> (so far) had said "no."  But, I'm not even sure I'm asking the right
>> question, much less whether I have the right answer -- which is why I
>> brought it up.
> 
> I'm with the market on this.  I think that people working on things
> like Atom would be wise to study and reuse microformat work whenever
> possible,

Thanks Lucas!

I also believe in the converse as well.

People working on microformat work would be wise to study and reuse Atom
work whenever possible.

Hence, for example hReview normatively reuses rel="self" from Atom.


> but importing HTML verbatim opens up a huge can of worms.

Hence we recommend only using valid XHTML microformatted data.

 
> Maybe it would be productive over the course of 4-5 years, but in the
> short term the chances of creating a nasty mess are high.

Lucas, are there specific examples or experience you can point to that
demonstrated this?  I'm curious to know what led you to this conclusion.

Thanks,

Tantek