[uf-discuss] hAtom - proposed move from draft to full spec
brian.suda at gmail.com
Wed Apr 11 02:49:59 PDT 2007
On 4/10/07, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <21e770780704101358r34955956g1c8075a59a7574ac at mail.gmail.com>, Brian
> Suda <brian.suda at gmail.com> writes
> >On 4/9/07, David Janes <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/9/07, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I contend that hAtom satisfies the requirements at:
> >> >
> >> > <http://microformats.org/wiki/process#Specifications>
> >> >
> >> > and should be made a full specification. Any objections?
> >--- yes, i have plenty of objections. We are currently at a version
> >0.2 before we go an make any sort of VOTING process or we should make
> >it much more clear how to move from a draft to spec.
> I can't make any sense of that; and I don't believe that's a failure on
> my part.
> Do you mean that the much-vaunted process, described on the wiki, isn't
> You will usually need at least one iteration to get past the
> draft stage. By the time something becomes a specification, it
> should be stable so that developers can pick it up and write to
> it. This in turn implies that there are at least a couple of
---- sorry, i have just been sorting through a week of back emails and
didn't have time to send a lengthy explination to every single one.
Recently, there has been alot of discuss on the IRC about implementing
hAtom in Operator. As long as there are outstanding issues and
questions about how things work, then i don't consider the spec
> Before moving to the specifications section, drop a note to
> microformats-discuss and wait a day or two for major objections.
> If none are forthcoming, move the microformat to the
> specifications area. This move will wake up any sleeping
> editors, and they may raise an objection and move you back to
> draft. If you have followed the process, now is the time to pin
> them down. At this juncture, any remaining issues should be easy
> to resolve.
> (Section quoted in full.)
i'll try and get a full list of outstanding issues available. I
believe that we need to flush out the test suite and compare several
implementations. At the moment we have atleast 2 that i am aware of
(maybe hKit too?).
I think it is a matter for the Authors of the spec to suggest moving
the spec from draft forward when they feel comfortable - maybe they
are more aware of issues than others?
Since David has expressed interest in this, then it is worth pursuing.
I just want to make sure all the aspects of hAtom have been
worked-out, documented, have testable cases, and have working
implementations. Then IMHO, we can consider calling something more
than just a draft. If the community is willing to do this work, then
lets move things forward.
More information about the microformats-discuss