[uf-discuss] [chat] Microformats are not for data storage
timber at lava.net
Mon Oct 30 05:34:12 PST 2006
On Oct 30, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
>> Well, as I did when we first spoke months ago, I firmly disagree, and
>> over time, I think you will be proven wrong. There's simply no point
>> in having multiple instantiations of the same data in a text-based
>> format (I'm exempting relational databases).
> I agree. Universal formats are very useful, and if uF is being used
> by one aspect of the program, why not by all? I currently use XOXO to
> backup my reading list / transfer it to other feed readers. Why
> should this not be able to apply across the board to all microformats?
> It may not be part of 80% or initial-draft use cases, but if it
> starts happening, I'll be all for it.
Currently, I can't name a single IM client that uses semanticful HTML
for logging. In fact, there's been a trend *away* from HTML lately.
Microformats are supposed to represent what exists in the wild, no?
Whatever the validity of Chris's points about redundancy or future
directions, isn't the idea that uFs are supposed to represent what's
in the wild overriding?
More and more applications are using HTML for display, and less and
less are using it for storage. In fact, Adium was quite close to using
SQLite (a relational database) for it's log format -- and probably
would have if not for the braindead implementation of Apple's
Spotlight code (that's a whole different story).
I appreciate that there may be an (obvious) initial bias on this list
to using microformats to solve a problem, and that in the outside
community, there may be a bit of a bias as to *not* using microformats
to solve a problem. This is totally expected. In either case, I'm as
much here to be convinced as I am to convince people. So I welcome
people to comment on these emails, even if you feel like you're not
saying much more than "I agree."
More information about the microformats-discuss