[uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats

[Elias Torres]

On 12/9/06, David Janes <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com> wrote:
> On 12/9/06, Brian Suda <brian.suda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> We're not talking about the same thing but I think the case you're
> making here is pretty strong.
>
> The issue that I've been trying to solve in my mind (and I'm sure
> we're all on the same page here) is given an attribute A nested in
> micrformats M, N and P (from inner to outer), is "what does A belong
> to". If the answer is "all of them" then there seems to seems to be a
> potential conflict "consistent meaning" and "same meaning".
>

I'm trying to stay out of this because of I'm being consumed by other
commitments, but I'm really pleased to see a very healthy ongoing
conversation on the subject on this list. I think I really like the
way that David is stating the issue and am patiently hoping to see the
uf community taking this issue up further and watching for an outcome.

As an aside, I'm going to refocus my "semantic html" efforts from
worrying too much about the new attributes (e.g. RDFa: about,
property, etc) and worrying about mechanisms to resolve cases such as
the one posted by David. However, more importantly, I need to find an
important enough instance of the so-called problem that needs us to
resolve the "general microformat(s)" case instead of hoping that if we
build it, they will come.

-Elias