[admin] Declaring end of thread (was Re: [uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats)

Andy Mabbett andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Sat Dec 9 12:11:17 PST 2006

In message <C1A04F53.8242C%tantek at cs.stanford.edu>, Tantek Çelik
<tantek at cs.stanford.edu> writes

>I am ending this thread of >50 messages now

That's interesting - with what authority do you "declare end of thread".
Isn't this supposed to be a community, and isn't that or the community
to do?

If there is an autocracy (or some other non-community based management
system) here, then surely it should be openly and honestly documented?

>Parsing is OFF-TOPIC for microformats-discuss.  Such discussions belong
>in microformats-dev.  See the mailing-lists page on the wiki where this has
>been documented for quite some time:
>And then - if you are not actually working on (i.e. coding) a parser, then
>please don't post until you are.

So, parsing should only be discussed by people who are actively writing
parsers? And someone proposing a microformat should not comment on how
it is intended to be parsed? And someone using uFs in their mark-up,
perhaps for the first time, should not ask questions about, nor comment
on, how they are being parsed?

If so, that would have made this conversation:


"illegal", resulting in the loss of the benefits gained form it.

It would also prohibit the discussion of most use-cases, and would
prohibit a proponent from answering questions about their proposed

Also prohibited would be the reporting of bugs in parsers:


>Theoretical worries are not a priority.

They may not be *your* priority, but few inventions or advancements
could have been made, without some consideration of theoretical matters.

>2. Use real world examples for discussions.  Throughout this thread there
>have been numerous arguments based on strictly theoretical examples.
>The problem is we can waste ALL our time from now until forever
>discussing/worrying about theoretical examples and get nothing done.

Your implication, that all theoretical examples result in time wasting,
is unfounded.

>Theoretical examples are the equivalent to a DOS attack on actually getting
>things done.

Such hyperbole!

>3. Prefixing (e.g. "vcard-") has already been considered and rejected for
>microformats in general.  There have been deliberate exceptions made for one
>microformat (hAtom).  I'm not going to spend the time re-arguing this now -
>I have added an item to my to-do list on the wiki to better document this.

Thank you for making clear that it's currently not (well) documented.

Are we to understand also, that every decision, once made, even if
ill-documented, is irrevocable?

Or should we deduce that, if deliberate exceptions can be made in one
case, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that deliberate exceptions
be made in another?

Put another way: how are we to resolve the clear inconsistency in your
third point?

Andy Mabbett
            *  Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  <http://www.no2id.net/>
            *  Free Our Data:  <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
            *  Are you using Microformats, yet: <http://microformats.org/> ?

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list