URI profiles [was RE: [uf-discuss] Comments from
mikeschinkel at gmail.com
Sat Dec 16 01:49:28 PST 2006
> Without meaning to sound flippant, they should convince their
> tool providers to support microformats. It would take some
> effort, but blogs or CMSs or whatever can either provide
> access to the HEAD tag or some mechanism for specifying which
> microformats are in use and adding the required profiles into
> the HEAD tag itself.
That position doesn't reflect reality; it's akin to Rumsfled saying the war
was going well. It's what he wanted, but it wasn't true.
The reality is that lots of CMS are open-source, and open-source does what
they want to, when they want to. It's the nature of open source. What's
more, hosting providers often install software based on customer request;
customers can have any flavor they want as long as it's vanilla. (Try to
get a web host to install ISAPI Rewrite on a Windows server, for example.
Apples & Oranges, but still.)
No, the person who will be hurt by that position is the content author who
can't get the CMS to change and/or doesn't have the skills to modify it
themselves. Further, the web at large will be hurt because less content will
be marked up semantically than could have been.
> When new technology is deployed, there is generally a
> transitional phase where it takes developers to make things
> work. Once the tools catch up, even non-techies can be a part
> of it. There's no real reason not to expect that
> transitional phase to be a part of microformats' adoption.
> My understanding is many of the tools out there are already
> working on some sort of microformats support, this is just
> another example of it.
Then there is a need for a transitional solution.
More information about the microformats-discuss