professional relations (was: XFN usage stats
andRe:[uf-discuss]rel="muse" implies romantic relationship?)
mikeschinkel at gmail.com
Wed Dec 20 16:57:08 PST 2006
Siegfried Gipp wrote:
> Am Samstag, 16. Dezember 2006 08:31 schrieb Mike Schinkel:
> > You are making an invalid assumption which is that
> > I'm concerned about my markup. No, I'm not. I've
> > concerned about the need for a standard to be
> > created so that a body of knowledge and tools can
> > be developed around that body of knowledge, and
> > people will evangelize and a large number of people
> > will implement.
> > But that said, it's now clear to me that the microformat
> > brand is not going to address my concern. No need to
> > discuss any more; it's a dead issue.
> Are you sure? In any democracy a standard is a matter of
> adoption. And microformats do have the potential to be widely
> adopted. Although not for the majority of pages (at least not
> within the next ten years). But that's not a matter of
> microformats. It is simply that the majority of pages do not
> care for semantic markup at all, so why should they care for
> microformats? In an old-style page, marked up 100% vo visual
> effect, microformats is not even thought of. Nevertheless,
> and although microformats aren't perfect, it is still worth
> the efford.
Thanks for the comment, but I wasn't able to figure out what point you were
trying to make.
Were you saying that Microformats will develop to be a standard? If that
was your point, I don't debate it; I expect it. But w/o disambiguation and a
way to scale of the process, I think it will create a mess.
Or are you saying that there won't be a mess because you don't think many
pages will use Microformats?
Again, I'm rather confused on your point.
More information about the microformats-discuss