[uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?

[Chris Messina]

I do see this work having value, especially if browsers and
client-side apps are going to be able to keep up with the various
microformats as they are created and improved.

I don't know much about the history of this kind of discussion, but it
sounds useful *if* it can develop standards to ease the deployment of
new microformats into the wild...

Chris

On 3/30/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> > Gotcha... sorry for the intrusion... didn't want to stir things up..
>
> No worries.  After all, most of are here *in order* to stir things
> up. :-)
>
> > it certainly is a big challenge.  A gentleman on SB recommended
> > Microcontent Description (MCD) as a starting point.  Ernie, if you're
> > up for it, I'd be interested in getting something going.  I think this
> > list is the place to do it but I certainly respect Tantak's desire to
> > avoid the quagmire!
>
> Understood.
>
> > Maybe a sub-list of some sort that Ernie and I moderate?  Best,  Joe
>
> Not a bad idea at all.
>
> Tantek, I realize you may think this a complete waste of time, but
> would you be willing to at least quarantine us lunatics in our own
> "microformats-schema" mailing list?  If nothing else, it provides a
> safety valve to prevent the issue from cropping up here
> periodically.  And who knows? Every 65 million years or so, something
> *does* manage to boil the ocean. :-)
>
> -- Ernie P.
>
> On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote:
>
> >
> > On 3/30/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
> >> Hi Joe,
> >>
> >>> Is this format-of-formats already done?  If so, I apologize, can you
> >>> point me to it?  If not, what has been done and would it be
> >>> premature
> >>> for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much
> >>> feedback from everybody here, of course)?
> >>
> >> This is actually an FAQ, and a fairly tricky one at that, since it is
> >> isomorphic to the problem of a "general purpose parser."  I believe
> >> Tantek has declared that discussion off-topic for this list, since it
> >> has the potential to be a never-ending rathole.  However, I can't
> >> find such a statement on the FAQ:
> >>
> >> http://microformats.org/wiki/faq#Basic_Microformat_Questions
> >>
> >> Tantek, is that in fact the policy, and is it documented somewhere?
> >>
> >> That said, there are a few of us crazy enough to want to try, which
> >> I'm open to doing off-list if you're interested...
> >>
> >> -- Ernie P.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 30, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi All!
> >>>
> >>> I've been lurking for a while and truly appreciate all of the great
> >>> work going into microformats right now!
> >>>
> >>> I saw a message on the Structured Blogging mailing list that got me
> >>> thinking about a format-of-formats... a standard way to describe a
> >>> format.  My thoughts are here:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.joereger.com/entry-logid7-eventid5003-Structured-
> >>> Blogging-FormatofFormats.log
> >>>
> >>> As I posted, I realized that I haven't checked in with Tantek and
> >>> others regarding the concept of a format-of-formats.  I've seen a
> >>> lot
> >>> of Atom/RDF used.  I was a proponent of XML Schema a while back.
> >>> I've
> >>> been dabbling with Xforms.  XUL is out there.
> >>>
> >>> My basic position is that we should be able to provide a common
> >>> format
> >>> for the description of a microformat.  By creating a standard to
> >>> describe the formats we free toolmakers to create an implementation
> >>> and then be done with it.  Once we have support from WordPress, MT,
> >>> Drupal, LJ, etc then we can spawn microformats more quickly,
> >>> requiring
> >>> little or no development on the toolmaker part.  Toolmakers will
> >>> compete by providing advanced features in their implementation (like
> >>> CSS override hooks, see blog post).  Aggregators like
> >>> Technorati/PubSub will be able to build advanced functionality on
> >>> top
> >>> of specific formats and will compete at that level.  For example,
> >>> Technorati may create Technorati Music while PubSub may create
> >>> PubSub
> >>> Movies... their investment differentiates and end-users win.
> >>>
> >>> Is this format-of-formats already done?  If so, I apologize, can you
> >>> point me to it?  If not, what has been done and would it be
> >>> premature
> >>> for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much
> >>> feedback from everybody here, of course)?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for getting me up to speed!  Keep up the great work!
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Joe Reger
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> microformats-discuss mailing list
> >>> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> >>> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> microformats-discuss mailing list
> >> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> >> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > microformats-discuss mailing list
> > microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>