[uf-discuss] hCalendar spec- no specification included!

Benjamin West bewest at gmail.com
Wed Oct 18 14:05:36 PDT 2006

On 10/18/06, Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel at gmail.com> wrote:
> A form would be nice, but it takes time to develop and we can't expect they
> will be developed before people are interested.

Actually this is already done.  There are
generators/creators/___-o-matics or whatever the current term is for
hReview, hAtom, hCard, and hCalendar, AFAIK.  I believe they are all
linked to from their respective wiki page.

>OTOH, most people can't
> read a spec and make heads nor tails of it (I know that I struggle with W3C
> specs), so there is "the spec" and then there is the "tutorial" (or
> similar.)  All can be clearly linked from the mini-home page.
> This is just like Creative Commons where they have the human readable
> license and then you can see the lawyese if you really want. I've never even
> looked at the lawyered one, have you?  I don't need to; the simple version
> works much better for me and is all I need. Something that tells the average
> Joe how to author in simple language with good examples is what will be most
> beneficial for most people.

I think we all agree that some parts of the wiki have room for a lot
of improvement.

> >> Reasonable, but it needs some content, so as not to appear dry and
> unwelcoming.
> Not to be contrary, but see "How Users Read on the Web[1]."  Content for
> content sake is less than useful.  Google's home page is dry but it's used
> by more people than any other (or if not, I don't know what is) because it
> meets people's needs better than the alternative (or they would switch.)

Yahoo is much more used than Google :-).  However, that's irrelevant.
I believe the landing page for each format should answer the big
questions common to all readers when they arrive at a landing page,
and then quickly and thoughtlessly funnel readers into the sections
most relevant to their interests.  This includes information how
authoring, principles of creation, what the format is suited for, and
of course the spec itself.  I don't mean that these resources are on
the landing page, but rather that the landing page should act as a
funnel, quickly allowing the reader to sort out which direction has
the scent of information they are looking for.

Let's be careful to not exclusively talk about the specs.  The wiki
contains many kinds of information. While the specs are arguably the
most important kind, they aren't the only kind.  There is a lot of
supporting material, including web authoring tips, faqs, principles,
community information, discussions of goals...

I want to make sure we can identify what's on the wiki in terms of
larger categories, AND organize the specs.  The two categorization
efforts should inform each other.

Now that we've got a few suggestions on how the "spec space" should be
organized, can we work on classifying the other kinds of materials on
the wiki?


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list