[uf-discuss] What does "draft" mean? (was: Citation IRC Meet-up Time)

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Mon Apr 10 09:20:18 PDT 2006

On 4/10/06 9:01 AM, "Scott Reynen" <scott at randomchaos.com> wrote:

> On Apr 10, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> Alf, it is premature to be making "recommendations" when the
>> necessary steps
>> in the process have not yet been completed.  More on the wiki page
>> itself.
> I read the wiki page itself, and I don't see anything more
> descriptive than "process not completed."  Looking at the process,
> I'm not clear on which steps are considered incomplete.

Specifically, analysis of examples and documentation of implied schema,
which Brian Suda has since undertaken *after* the irc chat.  This is pretty
clearly described both in the process page, and in the examples page:


> I also see a  
> lot of "drafts" without much evidence of the process being followed
> at all.

One poor job does not deserve another - this line of argument NEVER
justifies poor behavior.

If you see drafts and find flaws, or lack of research / documentation,
please point that out on the *-issues pages for such drafts so that folks
can properly fill in the holes.

In addition, with each new microformat, we're learning as a community and
getting better at this, so yes, you're absolutely going to find that more
recent microformats do a better job at research and documentation than some
of the earlier ones.

> I'm confused about what the word "draft" means in relation
> to the microformats wiki.  If this isn't a "draft," what specifically
> is missing,

See above.  See also discussion with Brian Suda on IRC last night.


Thanks to Brian, more of the process is being followed, and there is an
improved citation-examples page.  Nonetheless, there still needs to be a
cleaned up citation-formats page, AND any proposals should be explored on
the citation-brainstorming page *first* before writing up a draft of any

The question of how to get from *-brainstorming to a draft is a good one,
that's perhaps where we have more art than science right now in the
microformats process.

But in short, when folks think they have a good straw proposal on a
*-brainstorming page, perhaps email the list, and ask for community input on
it.  Note that there may be multiple proposals documented and discussed on
the *-brainstorming pages.  This is both natural and a good thing as it lets
us compare and contrast different approaches, and hopefully pick the best

> and why was, for example, the include pattern labeled a
> "draft" prior to any real world examples or public discussion?

The patterns are not formats at all.  They do not stand on their own.
They are merely documentation of pieces of other formats that are expected
to (or are) being reused by other formats.  The real world examples for
includes in particular were documented in the context of resume-examples,
resume-formats, and resume-brainstorming (as noted at the very top of the
document) "Initially developed as part of resume-brainstorming..."  Later,
real world examples for reviews were found to need the include pattern as

Sent to the list on February 22nd for questions/issues/comments.




More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list