Fwd: [uf-discuss] Species microformat process
bewest at gmail.com
Thu Feb 1 11:40:28 PST 2007
I accidently sent this to just Andy, when I meant to send it to the
list. Oops. Anyway, I think the input others have had on this thread
is very good, and I look forward to seeing the results.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Benjamin West <bewest at gmail.com>
Date: Jan 31, 2007 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Species microformat process
To: Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> >To be honest, the
> >use case for the species microformat is a little bit weak.
> In what way do you think it could be weak? What information do you think
> is lacking?
It's not clear what the problem is. The statements refer to a future
filled with software agents that know "where to search." Most of the
examples you collected exhibit a hyperlinking behaviour to link the
name being referenced to a more substantial article on the subject.
It's not clear why a new format is required because it appears that
the problem can be solved with either simple hyperlinking or with some
clever application of rel-tag.
> >It could
> >be that if there is a lack of demand, it is due to the weak use case
> >and the gap between the research and the proposal.
> In what way do you feel there is a gap between the research and the
> proposal? How do you fee that the two could be more closely linked?
The proposed format doesn't bear any resemblence to publishing
behaviour in terms of the content and properties being published. The
markup also does not resemble current publishing practices.
> Why would you want to differentiate between two types of publishing? How
> would you decide where to draw the line?
"Right tool for the right job." Publishing behaviour would draw the
line. Different types of publishing may or may not need different
techniques for doing so.
More information about the microformats-discuss