[uf-discuss] Mailing list debate moved & new proposal
mikeschinkel at gmail.com
Wed Oct 25 15:05:35 PDT 2006
Andy Mabbett>> Why not create a new mailing list for each proposal, once
it's reached a certain stage?
I tend to really like this proposal. I've been thinking about if and how
Microformats can evolve and grow.
I can see Microformats being potentially much larger helping to create tags
in many different areas vertical but the current process can't scale.
For example, if someone might want to create microformats to identify "auto
parts" but I'm sure there are thousands of other areas too. How can we keep
up with them all?
It seems that having a central registry for approving subject areas and then
creating a list for that area could grow microformats exponentially.
Of course then the question becomes, how to avoid conflicts. I would suggest
that every microformat should have a unique name, and then within that
Microformat the subclasses would be free of namespace collisions. And maybe
having a well-known prefix like "uf-" so that general microformats could be
referred to within other Microsformats:
<div class="description">Exhaust System</div>
<abbr class="symbol" title="USD">$</abbr>
This was just off the top of my head, but I wanted to get the discussion
I will close with a quote from Tantek quoting and commenting on Weaving
the Web by TBL:
WTW Chapter 12 page 175
"We could allow a set of working groups that can be shown to form
self-reliant cluster to secede and form a new peer "clone"
anyone could start a consortium, when the conditions were right,
a few buttons on the Web page of a virtual "consortium factory"
This is a fascinating set of ideas. But why a "peer" consortium? The
W3C did not start
as a peer to those that came before it. I think if anything, we'll
see the tiniest of
efforts, that start quite small, and perhaps stay small, or perhaps
slowly grow into
something that could be said to be a peer.
More information about the microformats-discuss