[microformats-discuss] Microformats, REST, and baseline semantics

[Ryan King]

On Sep 19, 2005, at 7:01 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:

> This was inspired by the "definition of semantics" thread. This is
> probably something well understood by others, but I think it's worth
> even if to repeat it back for students such as myself.
>
> IMHO, a very useful quality of microformats (at least, the way I
> understand them) is that they piggyback on semantics of well-known
> formats (XHTML). This "secondariness" is what makes the concept so
> beautiful: the carrier format conveys general semantics, while
> microformats concentrate only on the semantics of a specified purpose.
>
> It is important to state that microformats do not "override" the
> baseline semantics, but rather complement/enrich them.

And they certainly don't reinvent them.

-ryan

> When I first logged into the #microformats chat room a while back, the
> topic was "REST vs. Microformats", discussing an article that I can't
> seem to locate at the moment.
>
> It is only today it dawned on me that the similarity with REST and
> Microformats is rather striking: both can be characterized as
> architectural styles, and both strive to rely on and complement
> well-known baseline semantics.
>
> Even without knowing XOXO spec, you can see that it is a hierarchy of
> lists. Similarly, a PUT request means that new data is added to the
> server, even though you might not know what data is.
>
> Does this make any sense?
>
> :DG<
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>

--
Ryan King
ryan at technorati.com