wiki-thon? Re: [uf-discuss] Microformats.org usability review
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Thu Feb 2 14:02:22 PST 2006
On 2/2/06 1:57 PM, "Christopher St John" <ckstjohn at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/2/06, Ryan King <ryan at technorati.com> wrote:
>> As I was saying... I don't think you can really extricate the process
>> from the results. Certainly the philosophy/process could be useful in
>> many contexts. Of course, I'd love to be wrong here.
> In theory, most spec processes are supposed to start with a review of
> existing specs and existing usage. In that sense, microformats is not
Actually, this is one of the biggest, most important differences of
microformats as compared to other spec processes.
Other spec processses: review existing specs and usage of those specs
Microformats: FIRST review existing usage on the web.
Microformats places existing usage ABOVE existing specs, and this is a very
important difference from other spec processes.
> What's different is that people here take it seriously. The
> people are the difference.
I certainly agree that the people are the difference.
However, there are plenty of people at W3C and IETF etc. that take their
respective processes quite seriously as well. I don't think you inteded a
slight there, but I just want to be clear that no such slight should have
> That isn't to say being very clear in the docs isn't helpful. The
> microformats process is different in some ways, and it's worth
> making clear, but I think for most people experiencing is believing.
Indeed. The best way of learning is doing.
More information about the microformats-discuss