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

[Brian Suda]

Thanks Elias for weighing in, i was getting abit worried that people
might have been "putting words in your mouth", it is glad to know you
are on the list to clear-up any potential confusions.

-brian

On 12/9/06, Elias Torres <elias at torrez.us> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>


-- 
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk