"uid" microformats? (was Re: [uf-discuss] ISBN mark-up)
bdarcus.lists at gmail.com
Tue Apr 25 16:47:48 PDT 2006
On 4/25/06, Tantek Çelik <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > It may be stronger, but it's problematic in many cases.
> Then we postpone those cases and focus on the ones that work now.
Except that the thread that got merged into the uid one was, in fact,
about marking up isbns and such, which is one of these cases.
> >>> I believe the syntax issue is rather important, because without clear
> >>> specification, all kinds of things can be stuffed in, therefore defeating
> >>> the purpose of interoperability, as illustrated by DOI/ISBN examples in
> >>> .
> >> It does not defeat the purpose, it merely allows the market to select the
> >> better scheme. Those that use poor identifiers are more often ignored by
> >> the market. We don't need to solve this problem at the format level.
> > So then for dates, it's unimportant to say that they must conform
> > (when encoded in title attributes) to any standardized date
> > representation; just let the market decide?
> ISO8601 is fairly well accepted. The battle is over. So we pick the
> current winner and go with it.
Exactly, and I'd argue the same of uris. ;-)
FWIW, I like Xiaoming's suggestion.
More information about the microformats-discuss