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

[Mike Schinkel]

>> We can't expect people to use something for which there is no spec!

And we can't expect a form to be developed when there isn't a spec either.  

>>>>  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.
>> Agreed. Did I say otherwise?

My memory was that you did.  If you didn't, then forgive me for bringing it
up.

>> Indeed. Did I ask for "content for content's sake"?

Honestly, as we are now spending more time on discussing our discussions, I
am starting to think we are just debating for the purpose debate. I think
it's time to wind down (my participation in) this thread.

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org
[mailto:microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org] On Behalf Of Andy
Mabbett
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 5:40 PM
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] hCalendar spec- no specification included!

In message <000e01c6f2f5$e658b3c0$0702a8c0 at Guides.local>, Mike Schinkel
<mikeschinkel at gmail.com> writes

>>> I don't think anyone has said that. I certainly don't think people 
>>> should
>be encouraged to begin authoring before first understanding what the 
>are nad are not "allowed" to do (unless by "authoring" you mean "fill 
>in a form and let a machine do the authoring for you")
>
>A form would be nice,

It might be; note that I wasn't calling for one.

> but it takes time to develop and we can't expect they will be 
>developed before people are interested.

We can't expect people to use something for which there is no spec!

[...]
>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?

Yup.

>  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.

Agreed. Did I say otherwise?

>>> 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]."

What, again?

>  Content for content sake is less than useful.

Indeed. Did I ask for "content for content's sake"?

>>> Once they standard is set, the brainstorming (and related examples) 
>>> is
>only of archival interest.
>
>Note that I said my list was just a set to start discussion

Note that I was discussing it.

>>> I note that your list does not include an explanation of Semantic
>XHTML...
>
>Again, as I said, my list was just a set to start discussion...

Note that I wasn't criticising you for omitting it.
--
Andy Mabbett
                Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  <http://www.no2id.net/>

                Free Our Data:  <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss at microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss