[uf-discuss] origin of class attribute approach in microformats ?

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Sun Jul 23 22:17:29 PDT 2006

On 7/23/06 5:22 PM, "Karl Dubost" <karl at w3.org> wrote:

> Guillaume,
> Le 22 juil. 06 à 08:35, Guillaume Lebleu a écrit :
>> why the approach has evolved to become the following "class
>> attribute-approach":
> [...]
>> instead of the following mixed-namespace approach:
> [...]
>> Both approaches work fine in a browser (firefox at least), and both
>> approaches could be generated from the same XML. But having an XML
>> background I see that the second approach has the following
>> advantages:
> It depends on the Web community you are talking to and then the type
> of applications and tools. In the paradigm of Web authors and Web
> designers, the Web community has a better understanding of class
> names because they are used to it.

All of this is certainly true.

> In some other Web communities, it will be the opposite, people will
> have a better grip on XML namespaces, and schemas.

With all due respect, there is very little intersection between the people
that have a better understanding of XML namespaces and schemas, and actual
use of that understanding to publish *content* with XML namespaces and
schemas on *the Web*.  There's tons of usage with proprietary APIs, and tons
behind the firewall with proprietary one-off custom apps, but nearly none
(certainly in comparison to HTML publishing) in terms of *content*
publishing on the public *Web*.

That's the difference in this community.

The focus on *content* on the *public* *Web*.

> So it's really a question of community of practices. The more
> important is to find bridges when it's possible.

I actually disagree with this quite strongly.

In short "building bridges" is code for neo-political-correctness that
socially appeals to many, but has nothing to do with science and the
scientific method.

To put it another way: Why is it important to build bridges to failures?

In science, when a theory fails and is discredited, scientists don't talk
about "building bridges" between failed theories and working theories.

Rather, the evolution of science *depends* on rigorously refuting and
putting to rest bad ideas.  Not building bridges to them.

> The rest turns  
> always in religious debates, which are pointless.

Which is why they are off-topic in this forum.

We're here to get real and get things done.  Not argue about theoretical



More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list