[uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?

[Chris Messina]

Yeah, I didn't really think that this topic could be solved (or even
discussed) herein.

It's a nice pipedream, but I do agree falls outside the boundaries of
the achieveable goals that we've set out w/ microformats.

Chris

On 3/30/06, Paul Bryson <paul at msn.com> wrote:
> "Tantek Ç elik" wrote...
> > In practice, this never[*] happens.  It's been tried *numerous* times.
> > DTD,
> > XML Schema, etc.  In practice, key portions/features of really *useful*
> > specific formats (like HTML) *always* fall outside of the meta-format, and
> > *must* be specified in prose of a specification.  This is specifically why
> > I
> > designed XMDP to be to absolute minimum of what is necessary to
> > define/recognize a vocabulary.  I'm working on some extensions for
> > includes
> > (to transclude multiple XMDP profiles or portions thereof into a single
> > profile), but other than that, I consider XMDP "done".
> >
> > In the spirit of "don't reinvent what you can re-use", anyone seriously
> > desiring to work on a format-of-formats should *first* teach themselves
> > DTD,
> > and XML Schema *at a minimum*, before having the arrogance to think they
> > can
> > do better.
>
> Why aren't they just using DTD or SML Schema for this?  That was the first
> thing I thought of when Joe first posted.
>
>
> Atamido
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>