[uf-discuss] Book Contents Format

[Tantek Ç elik]

On 6/22/06 7:43 AM, "Scott Reynen" <scott at randomchaos.com> wrote:

> On Jun 21, 2006, at 9:41 PM, Alex Ezell wrote:
> 
>> Honestly, I didn't think this mailing list would question the need for
>> a microformat. Question its structure and its uses, of course, but
>> question its necessity? It seems fundamental that a standard for
>> presenting book-format texts should be written.
> 
> I didn't mean to imply an answer to the question I asked.  It was
> really just a question.  The about page [1] says microformats are
> "adapted to current behaviors and usage patterns," are not "defining
> the whole world, or even just boiling the ocean," and "solve a
> specific problem."  I think "is this needed?" is a question that
> should be asked of all potential microformats, to keep these
> statements true.

Agreed.

> If the answer is yes, then great.  But it's not
> always yes.  Not everything needs a microformat.

This is a good summary.

In addition, if it turns out there is insufficient real world behaviors to
merit a microformat, people are still encourage to publish semantic XHTML
with semantic class names and gain experience by doing so.

To some extent, that's what "boom" is, Håkon is experimenting with his own
set of semantic class names to gain experience with marking up book
semantics in XHTML.

Thanks,

Tantek