Development of uFs outside the current framework (was: microformats vs. semantic XHTML (was Re: [uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats))

Andy Mabbett andy at
Thu Dec 14 11:41:14 PST 2006

In message <200612141443.41681.siegfried at>, Siegfried Gipp
<siegfried at> writes

>Take f.ex. one of my pages: This is a
>page which aims to combine the ideas of microformats with the Dublin
>Core vocabulary. This is by definition _no_ microformat, since this did
>not go through any process other than my own thoughts. But it is
>semantic markup and it is somewhat similar to microformats, it even
>sports an XMDP profile. But still it is _no_ microformat.

What if it takes off, and is adopted by many publishers and parsers
(let's say they include the Dublin Core body, and Google, respectively),
with many millions of examples on-line.

Will it be a uF then?

If not, why not?

>To convert that to a microformat that proposal would have to go through
>the microformats process.

What if it when through that process, not on this mailing list & related
'wiki', but, say, those belonging to the Dublin Core body?

What if that happened, but the process was a little different? Say 5%
different? Or 10%? Or..?

What if many such "pseudo-uFs" did the same, past the point where those
developed "here" were less than the (sacred) 20% of those widely in use?

>Simply a matter of definition.

Well, quite. And there's more than one.

>In this context, "microformats" may be considered to be something like
>a "brand".

Like hoover or biro..?

Andy Mabbett
            *  Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  <>
            *  Free Our Data:  <>
            *  Are you using Microformats, yet: <> ?

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list