wiki-thon? Re: [uf-discuss] usability review

Tantek Ç elik tantek at
Thu Feb 2 14:02:22 PST 2006

On 2/2/06 1:57 PM, "Christopher St John" <ckstjohn at> wrote:

> On 2/2/06, Ryan King <ryan at> 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
> different.

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
been intended.

> 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 mailing list