[uf-discuss] Google Gdata new syndication protocol!

Scott Reynen scott at randomchaos.com
Thu Apr 20 10:12:06 PDT 2006

On Apr 20, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

> On 4/20/06, Chris Messina <chris.messina at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Holy hell. This is rediculous. Gdata == the Word document format  
>> of web 2.0.
>> Does anyone know *anyone* in Google that will tell us why they're
>> ignoring microformats??
> What value do microformats provide in this context? They hardly seem
> ideal for the sort of straight data transport that seems to be the
> focus on the gdata stuff.

The same value they provide everywhere else.  Human-readable data is  
easier for human programmers to work with, even if it's being  
consumed and produced entirely by machines.  When it's not being used  
solely by machines (as RSS and Atom are not), it also cuts down on  
data repetition, which reduces opportunity for error and is just less  
work for everyone involved.  Why should I produce a feed of my events  
in Gdata format, when I already have them in microformatted HTML,  
which both humans and computers can already read?

Unless they're functionally defective, established standards should  
be preferred to new standards because they work with existing tools.   
(Don't reinvent the wheel, unless it's not rolling well.)  These are  
the reasons why Gdata uses RSS and Atom.  These are the reasons why  
RSS and Atom use HTML.  These are the reasons why Gdata should use HTML.


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list