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

[Ryan Cannon]

On Dec 11, 2006, at 11:43 PM, mikeschinkel at gmail.com wrote:
> Brian Suda wrote:
>> Microformats are meant as building blocks and they should be
>> able to be using independantly and together...
>
> If that is true, how can it be achieved without a disambiguation  
> conventions
> to keep official Microformats from conflicting with similar  
> "techniques."
>
> Or is it the view of the Microformat community that Microformats  
> will keep
> it's house clean and, because Microformats are the "anointed" ones  
> that it
> just "sucks to be the other guy?"

Since Microformats (capital-M) are based on research of current  
practice, I
think it's probably more helpful to think of techniques as proto- 
Microformats.

If the community is slow to develop a format that makes sense, we often
encourage authors to develop their own systems, which then can inform  
how a
format will function in the wild. This is where documentation and the
oft-belabored "process" becomes powerful. Although it can be annoying  
for
early-adopters and people who need solutions now, it creates strong  
formats
once the issues are solidified.

-- 
Ryan Cannon

Interactive Developer
MSI Student, School of Information
University of Michigan
http://RyanCannon.com