[uf-discuss] Is the world ready for head[profile]?
qidydl at gmail.com
Mon Jul 17 10:05:20 PDT 2006
The XMDP formats are not in any way intended to be specs or to capture
the entirety of a specification. Thus, I wouldn't consider them to be
drafts. I would assume they are written in encoded HTML to be
human-readable, and because HTML is already a widely-deployed
You are welcome to create an XMDP for the various rel values on your
site. I can't fathom how this would create any problems. In fact, it
is more likely to disambiguate things by having those rel values
defined in your own XMDP, rather than leaving them open to
interpretation. You're the one using those rel values, you know what
you mean by them; why leave it to a standards body to guess?
On 7/16/06, Ryan Cannon <ryan at ryancannon.com> wrote:
> I recently redesigned my site and had some wild ideas about defining
> the loosely-collect @rel values I have on my site (pgpkey, icon,
> pingback, editURI, etc.) as well as assorted Microformat values for
> @rel that do not have formal XMDP set up already. The long-term goal
> is to create a Firefox Extension/Greasemonkey Script/Bookmarklet that
> displays meaningful information for them. My question is twofold:
> Why are most microformat profiles written in encoded html? Is
> this to show that they are only drafts?
> Is it beneficial to create my xhtml metadata profiles and publish
> them without submitting them to a standards body? Is their harm in
> publishing xhtml metadata profiles willy-nilly?
> Ryan Cannon
> Interactive Developer
> MSI Student, School of Information
> University of Michigan
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss