[uf-discuss] [chat] Microformats are not for data storage
timber at lava.net
Mon Oct 30 06:55:47 PST 2006
On Oct 30, 2006, at 4:33 AM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
>> 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?
> Yes, hence why I said "It may not be part of 80% or initial-draft use
> cases, but if it starts happening, I'll be all for it."
> I'm not saying that we as a community should design microformats
> specifically for the purpose of data storage. I'm saying we shouldn't
> stand against their eventual propogation into that arena, becase they
> could be useful there too.
Sure, I'm not saying (despite the title of my thread :P) that no uF
should be used for data storage, ever. chat logs, at this point, seem
to be a well solved problem using XML, and I see no reason for
microformats to butt their heads in at this point. But if the winds
change and more people start using HTML in a semanticful way to store
logs, then by all means, we should change too.
More information about the microformats-discuss