From microformats at 200ok.com.au Mon Jan 1 04:18:22 2007 From: microformats at 200ok.com.au (Ben Buchanan) Date: Mon Jan 1 04:18:25 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: References: <3ce2ebd20612290330o64570245h4bf01ca5378a6ee6@mail.gmail.com> <45956BDC.2060501@gunters.org> <4595DD56.25693.2E374E7@bjonkman.sobac.com> Message-ID: <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com> > "describes the relationship from the current document to the anchor > specified by the href attribute"[2] > "nsfw" describes the authors opinion of the nature of the content to > be found at the end of the link, and by no means the nature of the > relationships between the destination and source documents. I'm not immediately convinced that it isn't it a relationship. NSFW would formalise the fact that document A: 1) contains a link to document B 2) document A's author considers document B "not safe for work" by their own standards > 2. this is not visible metadata (nor is nofollow, for that matter) Nor are tags, for that matter. Tags encourage visible meta-data, but the actual functional meta-data is invisible[1]. It's a uf "requirement" which is inconsistently maintained. > It certainly, as has been more than once mentioned, doesn't pave the > cowpaths (where explicit visible content in the page (though not > always in the link content) is how nsfw is almost invariably indicated.) Perhaps a more workable uf would be: Blah blah language/culture-appropriate warning text This would allow for a consistent marker (the class); the warning remains visible; it can only apply to one (unambiguous). At any rate, this does appear to be a moot point[2]. Out of curiosity, is there a formal set of criteria that are applied to deeming a uf "rejected"? cheers, Ben [1] I expand on my thoughts at http://weblog.200ok.com.au/2006/01/limitations-of-rel-microformat.html [2] http://microformats.org/wiki/rejected-formats#Content_Rating -- --- --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson From timber at lava.net Mon Jan 1 05:17:16 2007 From: timber at lava.net (Colin Barrett) Date: Mon Jan 1 05:17:20 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com> References: <3ce2ebd20612290330o64570245h4bf01ca5378a6ee6@mail.gmail.com> <45956BDC.2060501@gunters.org> <4595DD56.25693.2E374E7@bjonkman.sobac.com> <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5451E998-60F4-48C3-95C5-74D11F445A0B@lava.net> On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Ben Buchanan wrote: > I'm not immediately convinced that it isn't it a relationship. NSFW > would formalise the fact that document A: > 1) contains a link to document B > 2) document A's author considers document B "not safe for work" by > their own standards This isn't a relationship. This is document author A's opinion of document B. Tagging is probably a better uF for this, IMO. I like the idea, but someone pointed out (before the post on this list) that it's the wrong semantics for @rel. For the semantic web to go further, we really do need to respect the semantics established in standards documents. -Colin From costello at mitre.org Mon Jan 1 05:59:15 2007 From: costello at mitre.org (Costello, Roger L.) Date: Mon Jan 1 05:59:18 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] I have filled in the hCalendar profile page; please check for accuracy Message-ID: Hi Folks, I have filled in the hCalendar profile page: http://microformats.org/wiki/hcalendar-profile Hopefully I have done it correctly. Please check it for accuracy. /Roger From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Mon Jan 1 07:51:20 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Mon Jan 1 07:53:00 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: <5451E998-60F4-48C3-95C5-74D11F445A0B@lava.net> References: <3ce2ebd20612290330o64570245h4bf01ca5378a6ee6@mail.gmail.com> <45956BDC.2060501@gunters.org> <4595DD56.25693.2E374E7@bjonkman.sobac.com> <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com> <5451E998-60F4-48C3-95C5-74D11F445A0B@lava.net> Message-ID: In message <5451E998-60F4-48C3-95C5-74D11F445A0B@lava.net>, Colin Barrett writes >Tagging is probably a better uF for this, IMO. I like the idea, but >someone pointed out (before the post on this list) that it's the wrong >semantics for @rel. For the semantic web to go further, we really do >need to respect the semantics established in standards documents. I thought tagging was for tagging the current page, not labelling a link to a second page. How would you tag:

Here's a fluffy kitten and here's a pornographic nude

? -- Andy Mabbett Merry Bloomin' Christmas! From jeremyboggs at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 08:10:59 2007 From: jeremyboggs at gmail.com (Jeremy Boggs) Date: Mon Jan 1 08:10:35 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Footnotes In-Reply-To: <008301c72d0b$c7252920$2102fea9@Guides.local> References: <008301c72d0b$c7252920$2102fea9@Guides.local> Message-ID: <86D1D888-1067-493C-B61B-A35EE900D7A2@gmail.com> On Dec 31, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote: > Exactly. The only use-case I forsee is for blog footnotes. There > may be > others, but in the spirit of going with existing markup, using for > a blog is > what I'm currently[1] doing. Some examples of footnoting and endnoting can be found in: 1. Blogs 2. Electronic Journals and journal articles 3. Pre-Print archives/self-archiving of academic papers. 4. Online books 5. Online conferences A good start for discussing the limitations of footnoting on the web, regarding tools, markup strategies, and presentation, is Paula Petrik's "Scholarship on the Web: Managing & Presenting Footnotes & Endnotes." [1] Paula doesn't discuss microformats, but in addition to markup examples, she also points to various discussions about footnoting/endnoting at the W3C and others. It's very brief, but it might be helpful. I'm glad to help put footnoting through the microformats process, find specific examples, et cetera. I already have a number of examples from my research on electronic scholarship that I can contribute to a footnotes-examples page. Jeremy Boggs [1] http://www.archiva.net/footnote/index.htm From timber at lava.net Mon Jan 1 08:14:21 2007 From: timber at lava.net (Colin Barrett) Date: Mon Jan 1 08:14:25 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: References: <3ce2ebd20612290330o64570245h4bf01ca5378a6ee6@mail.gmail.com> <45956BDC.2060501@gunters.org> <4595DD56.25693.2E374E7@bjonkman.sobac.com> <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com> <5451E998-60F4-48C3-95C5-74D11F445A0B@lava.net> Message-ID: On Jan 1, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > I thought tagging was for tagging the current page, not labelling a > link > to a second page. It could be expanded to include links? -- I don't know a whole lot about it, it was suggested in the discussion I had with someone where it was pointed out that this is an incorrect use of rel. From mail at ciaranmcnulty.com Mon Jan 1 09:29:51 2007 From: mail at ciaranmcnulty.com (Ciaran McNulty) Date: Mon Jan 1 09:29:54 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: References: <3ce2ebd20612290330o64570245h4bf01ca5378a6ee6@mail.gmail.com> <45956BDC.2060501@gunters.org> <4595DD56.25693.2E374E7@bjonkman.sobac.com> <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com> <5451E998-60F4-48C3-95C5-74D11F445A0B@lava.net> Message-ID: On 1/1/07, Colin Barrett wrote: > On Jan 1, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > > I thought tagging was for tagging the current page, not labelling a > > link > > to a second page. > > It could be expanded to include links? -- I don't know a whole lot > about it, it was suggested in the discussion I had with someone where > it was pointed out that this is an incorrect use of rel. I don't believe rel-tag is an incorrect use of 'rel'. @rel="tag" means that the page being linked to is a tag for the current page. The linked page should ideally contain a definition of what the tag means. Another @rel value that is more similar to the @rel="nsfw" would be @rel="no-follow", which is trying to express an opinion about the linked page rather than describing the link relationship. My own opinion is that a rating is more like an hReview, but the semantics don't correspond too well. -Ciaran McNulty From timber at lava.net Mon Jan 1 10:00:21 2007 From: timber at lava.net (Colin Barrett) Date: Mon Jan 1 10:00:30 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: References: <3ce2ebd20612290330o64570245h4bf01ca5378a6ee6@mail.gmail.com> <45956BDC.2060501@gunters.org> <4595DD56.25693.2E374E7@bjonkman.sobac.com> <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com> <5451E998-60F4-48C3-95C5-74D11F445A0B@lava.net> Message-ID: On Jan 1, 2007, at 7:29 AM, Ciaran McNulty wrote: > On 1/1/07, Colin Barrett wrote: >> On Jan 1, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> >> > I thought tagging was for tagging the current page, not labelling a >> > link >> > to a second page. >> >> It could be expanded to include links? -- I don't know a whole lot >> about it, it was suggested in the discussion I had with someone where >> it was pointed out that this is an incorrect use of rel. > > I don't believe rel-tag is an incorrect use of 'rel'. @rel="tag" > means that the page being linked to is a tag for the current page. > The linked page should ideally contain a definition of what the tag > means. I didn't mean to imply that rel-tag was an improper use of rel. I meant rel-nsfw. > Another @rel value that is more similar to the @rel="nsfw" would be > @rel="no-follow", which is trying to express an opinion about the > linked page rather than describing the link relationship. Not really -- it's saying that this link isn't a link that should be followed by an automated search engine. The relationship between document A and document B is "don't follow if you're a search engine". You can't really find an appropriate way to finish the sentence "The relationship between document A and document B is ________" with rel- nsfw. It's a pretty good litmus test for the correct usage of @rel. From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Mon Jan 1 10:46:21 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Mon Jan 1 10:47:50 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: References: <3ce2ebd20612290330o64570245h4bf01ca5378a6ee6@mail.gmail.com> <45956BDC.2060501@gunters.org> <4595DD56.25693.2E374E7@bjonkman.sobac.com> <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com> <5451E998-60F4-48C3-95C5-74D11F445A0B@lava.net> Message-ID: In message , Ciaran McNulty writes >Another @rel value that is more similar to the @rel="nsfw" would be >@rel="no-follow", which is trying to express an opinion about the >linked page rather than describing the link relationship. Having re-read the original "content rating" discussion, it's clear that the initial proposal was for a uF for ratings of a current page, for which tagging was, not unreasonably, suggested. The current proposal is for a method of "rating" (in a very loose sense) the page which is being linked to, and for which tagging is not appropriate. They are clearly *NOT* the same, so I've removed reference to the latter from the "rejected formats" page: For the current use-case, what seems to be need (or, perhaps, "wanted") is a way of labelling an "a" element, for which: rel=[rating] or class=[rating] might be more appropriate. So we might, hypothetically, use the ICRA vocabulary: thus: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Boxing080905.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anadyomene.jpg For the sake of transparency, I should state that I am against a uF for rating linked pages as "NSFW" (on in any other, similarly arbitrary and culturally insensitive manner); I am ambivalent about a uF for rating linked pages according to a /relatively/ neutral, descriptive schema such as ICRA: though I note that the ICRA vocabulary is itself limited (the film "Bambi" would be rated as violent, for instance; there're no categories for topless men, people in underwear, etc.; and there is no method for encoding "degree" - a sentence such as "Lord Willoughby de Broke shot a bird on his estate at Compton Verney" is rated in the same way as a graphic visual depiction of a bullfight or an abattoir. Much of the wording (e.g. "harmful acts") is still highly subjective.) -- Andy Mabbett Happy New Year! From limbo at actcom.co.il Mon Jan 1 11:05:24 2007 From: limbo at actcom.co.il (Eran) Date: Mon Jan 1 11:05:34 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701011905.l01J5W7w008108@microformats.org> Andy said: > Having re-read the original "content rating" discussion, it's clear that > the initial proposal was for a uF for ratings of a current page, for > which tagging was, not unreasonably, suggested. > > The current proposal is for a method of "rating" (in a very loose sense) > the page which is being linked to, and for which tagging is not > appropriate. > I haven't followed the entire thread but this seems like a good use case for xfolk or even hReview. The xfolk version could look like this:
check this out! ()
The hReview version would probably be similar, maybe just a wrapper around the xfolkentry to show that this is just one person's opinion and should be taken as such. Eran. From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Mon Jan 1 11:31:49 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Mon Jan 1 11:34:39 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: <200701011905.l01J5W7w008108@microformats.org> References: <200701011905.l01J5W7w008108@microformats.org> Message-ID: In message <200701011905.l01J5W7w008108@microformats.org>, Eran writes >> The current proposal is for a method of "rating" (in a very loose sense) >> the page which is being linked to, and for which tagging is not >> appropriate. >> > >I haven't followed the entire thread but this seems like a good use >case for xfolk or even hReview. > >The xfolk version could look like this: > >
> check this out! > ()
The 'wiki' page on xFolk: says: "If you need to define tags as part of a more specialised format, rel="tag" is the recommended way to do so, and xFolk, hReview, hCard and hCalendar all do this." Yet there is no mention of this, that I can find, on any of the hCalendar pages. Is its application to hCalendar documented, somewhere? Indeed, is it true, or is it just wishful thinking? Similarly, the only reference to it on the hCard pages, seems to be: with no mention in the examples or on the cheat-sheet. -- Andy Mabbett Merry Bloomin' Christmas! From mail at ciaranmcnulty.com Mon Jan 1 12:03:04 2007 From: mail at ciaranmcnulty.com (Ciaran McNulty) Date: Mon Jan 1 12:03:06 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: References: <3ce2ebd20612290330o64570245h4bf01ca5378a6ee6@mail.gmail.com> <45956BDC.2060501@gunters.org> <4595DD56.25693.2E374E7@bjonkman.sobac.com> <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com> <5451E998-60F4-48C3-95C5-74D11F445A0B@lava.net> Message-ID: On 1/1/07, Colin Barrett wrote: > On Jan 1, 2007, at 7:29 AM, Ciaran McNulty wrote: > > Another @rel value that is more similar to the @rel="nsfw" would be > > @rel="no-follow", which is trying to express an opinion about the > > linked page rather than describing the link relationship. > > Not really -- it's saying that this link isn't a link that should be > followed by an automated search engine. The relationship between > document A and document B is "don't follow if you're a search engine". > > You can't really find an appropriate way to finish the sentence "The > relationship between document A and document B is ________" with rel- > nsfw. It's a pretty good litmus test for the correct usage of @rel. But isn't it the case that rel-nsfw is exactly the same class of relationship as rel-nofollow? If your example is OK then surely "don't follow if you're at work" is just as valid? -Ciaran McNulty From limbo at actcom.co.il Mon Jan 1 12:03:03 2007 From: limbo at actcom.co.il (Eran) Date: Mon Jan 1 12:03:11 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701012003.l01K3B07014249@microformats.org> Andy said: > >The xfolk version could look like this: > > > >
> > check this out! > > ()
> That would also tag the *linking* page as "NSFW". > > (In fact, that seems to be an issue with xfolk in general...) > Actually I'd say this is an issue with rel-tag in general, you'd have similar problems with hreview and with any uF that employs rel-tag. The scope of a tag was left (purposefully) undefined, quoting the abstract section of rel-tag[1]: Rel-Tag is one of several MicroFormats. By adding rel="tag" to a hyperlink, a page indicates that the destination of that hyperlink is an author-designated "tag" (or keyword/subject) for the current page. Note that a tag may just refer to a major portion of the current page (i.e. a blog post). That last sentence pretty much leaves all interpretation of scope to the application. In a blog the scope is usually a single post (even if several posts appear on the same page), in hReview it is the product (or the rating for the product) and in xFolk it's the page pointed to by the taggedentry link. Eran. [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/reltag#Abstract From mail at ciaranmcnulty.com Mon Jan 1 12:12:49 2007 From: mail at ciaranmcnulty.com (Ciaran McNulty) Date: Mon Jan 1 12:12:51 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: <200701012003.l01K3B07014249@microformats.org> References: <200701012003.l01K3B07014249@microformats.org> Message-ID: On 1/1/07, Eran wrote: > That last sentence pretty much leaves all interpretation of scope to the > application. In a blog the scope is usually a single post (even if several > posts appear on the same page), in hReview it is the product (or the rating > for the product) and in xFolk it's the page pointed to by the taggedentry > link Is that a problem though? If a page contains an hAtom blog entry about Tom, an hReview of Dick and an hListing about Harry then it's actually a perfectly valid interpretation of the tags to say that that page is tagged with Tom, Dick, Harry even though parsing the individual uFs would yield more specific interpretations. -Ciaran From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Mon Jan 1 12:37:43 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Mon Jan 1 12:39:04 2007 Subject: Scope of tags (Was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw") In-Reply-To: <200701012003.l01K3B07014249@microformats.org> References: <200701012003.l01K3B07014249@microformats.org> Message-ID: In message <200701012003.l01K3B07014249@microformats.org>, Eran writes >> >The xfolk version could look like this: >> > >> >
>> > check this out! >> > ()
> >> That would also tag the *linking* page as "NSFW". >> >> (In fact, that seems to be an issue with xfolk in general...) >> > >Actually I'd say this is an issue with rel-tag in general, you'd have >similar problems with hreview and with any uF that employs rel-tag. Indeed. It was suggested that "deceased" be used as a tag in hCards, in lieu of a date-of-death field. Suppose Sue publishes a family tree as a series of web pages, one for each person. On her own page, she has: http://example.com/sue.html Title: Sue Smith Jane Fred |_____________.______________| | Sue with an hCard for each person. If they tag Fred as "deceased", then they, too, are shown as deceased. Not good. -- Andy Mabbett Merry Bloomin' Christmas! From john at westciv.com Mon Jan 1 16:21:17 2007 From: john at westciv.com (John Allsopp) Date: Mon Jan 1 16:22:07 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com> References: <3ce2ebd20612290330o64570245h4bf01ca5378a6ee6@mail.gmail.com> <45956BDC.2060501@gunters.org> <4595DD56.25693.2E374E7@bjonkman.sobac.com> <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Ben, > I'm not immediately convinced that it isn't it a relationship. NSFW > would formalise the fact that document A: > 1) contains a link to document B > 2) document A's author considers document B "not safe for work" by > their own standards at best you could make the argument that rev="nsfw" is appropriate within the semantics of HTML (rev is the reverse of rel). That's how votelinks work - rev="vote-for", the rev attribute capturing the sense that "this document or a substantial part of it has the relationship with the destination of this link as being a vote-for it" (yes that's tortured) So by analogy you might argue rev="nsfw" "means" "this document or a substantial part of it has the relationship with the destination of this link as being an observation that its content is nsfw" (but I feel that is really pushing at least two aspects of rev, in particular the document (or substantial part of a document) level at which it works). (One of the misleading aspects of both rel and rev is that while they are encoded on links, they apply to inter-document relationships)) But I certainly don't think even at a stretch you could make the logic of the rel attribute work sensibly in the case of rel-nsfw - the same objections as the rel="vote-for" I think apply, and then some. Perhaps a (wildy off topic) suggestion to the WhatWG and or the W3s new HTML WG which emerges from the discussion of rel and rev is to consider providing attributes that enable link level assertions - that is a mechanism for typing links themselves, perhaps in a manner similar to rel and rev, so that this is extensible via profiles or convention. FWIW over a decade ago I implemented a hypertext based system that had user extensible typed links, and that feature was widely used by the (relatively small) user base. But that's really out of the scope of ufs eh? happy new year to all j John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Directions North, Vancouver Feb 6-10 :: http:// north.webdirections.org From dmitry.baranovskiy at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 16:34:21 2007 From: dmitry.baranovskiy at gmail.com (Dmitry Baranovskiy) Date: Tue Jan 2 16:34:25 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Conference Schedule Creator Message-ID: <8a52ddad0701021634wa34a25dld4e89286974c046f@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Recently I found interesting task in Tantek's todo list [1]: Conference Schedule Creator. Probably this is the hardest microformatted structure so far (comparing with simplicity of microformats in general) So, during this Christmas holidays I created this creator and would ask you to judge it and, if it is good enough, use it on your next conference schedule page. Link: http://dmitry.baranovskiy.com/work/csc/ So far I used float timezones, but will add support for fixed and UTC soon. 1. http://microformats.org/wiki/to-do#help_implementers -- Best regards, Dmitry Baranovskiy http://dmitry.baranovskiy.com From dmitry.baranovskiy at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 17:06:10 2007 From: dmitry.baranovskiy at gmail.com (Dmitry Baranovskiy) Date: Tue Jan 2 17:06:17 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Conference Schedule Creator Message-ID: <8a52ddad0701021706y4a186689odc4f3ad3bf52503f@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Recently I found interesting task in Tantek's todo list [1]: Conference Schedule Creator. Probably this is the hardest microformatted structure so far (comparing with simplicity of microformats in general) So, during this Christmas holidays I created this creator and would ask you to judge it and, if it is good enough, use it on your next conference schedule page. Link: http://dmitry.baranovskiy.com/work/csc/ So far I used float timezones, but will add support for fixed and UTC soon. 1. http://microformats.org/wiki/to-do#help_implementers -- Best regards, Dmitry Baranovskiy http://dmitry.baranovskiy.com From mdagn at spraci.com Wed Jan 3 13:12:27 2007 From: mdagn at spraci.com (Michael MD) Date: Tue Jan 2 18:12:10 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Conference Schedule Creator References: <8a52ddad0701021706y4a186689odc4f3ad3bf52503f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002001c72f7b$df2698c0$116bacca@COMCEN> Is there a good way to say that an event is part of another event? - like a way to distinguish an event that is part of a conference from an entry describing the whole conference which might be used on a listing of upcoming conferences.. From bjonkman at sobac.com Tue Jan 2 20:06:02 2007 From: bjonkman at sobac.com (Bob Jonkman) Date: Tue Jan 2 20:37:55 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: References: <3ce2ebd20612290330o64570245h4bf01ca5378a6ee6@mail.gmail.com>, <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com>, Message-ID: <459AE55A.8920.27C3BC6@bjonkman.sobac.com> Before this thread dies out completely, I'd like to forward a discussion the orginal author and I had: ------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: PJ Doland Subject: Re: [The Frosty Mug Revolution] New Comment Posted to 'A Semantic Solution for Presenting NSFW Content' Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:58:45 -0500 To: bjonkman@sobac.com Bob- Thanks for the information on the list discussion. I just read through the whole list thread. There's some very good feedback in there, but I would like to encourage your group to resist the urge to make the spec too full-featured. If people have to categorize HOW something might be considered NSFW (nudity, language, violence, nudity & language, etc.) it's going to make them less likely to use the standard in practice. As I've said earlier, I think PICS and ICRA failed because of their complexity. I, personally, think this feature will mostly be used by community- driven sites where the attribute would be automatically added to a link by server-side code whenever a user reports a post or comment as NSFW with a single click. That is all the more reason to just keep it simple. Adoption of this as a general standard could be VERY helpful for wider adoption of microformats as a whole, but the simplicity of it is going to be key. -- PJ Doland President PJ Doland Web Design, Inc. 11591 Maple Ridge Rd. Reston, VA 20190 P: 703.621.0991 F: 208.248.3241 E-mail: pjdoland@pjdoland.com http://www.pjdoland.com On Jan 1, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Bob Jonkman wrote: > Hi: Thanx for the reply! > > There's been some discussion on your proposal on the Microformats > mailing list. Consensus was > pretty much the same as yours: PICS is too complicated; if it was > any good it would have > achieved widespread adoption already. There's a proposal to use > your rel="nsfw" as part of > the hReview microformat. This is very doable, and takes advantage > of existing parsers. > > The Microformat mailing list archives with the NSFW thread is at > http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006- > December/007885.html > > --Bob. > > > > This is what PJ Doland said > about "Re: [The Frosty Mug Revolution] New Comment Poste" on 30 Dec > 2006 at 21:18 > >> Bob- >> >> Thanks for your feedback. >> >> As I see it, there are several problem with PICS and ICRA: >> >> 1. The standards are too complicated for most bloggers to wrap-their >> heads around. Any Jake can type ten keystrokes and take advantage of >> my proposed standard. >> 2. They also don't reference offsite destination anchors. >> 3. They tend to label a whole page. > > > This is what PJ Doland said > about "Re: [The Frosty Mug Revolution] New Comment Poste" on 30 Dec > 2006 at 20:00 > >> Bob- >> >> The problem with PICS and ICRA is that: >> >> 1. They tend to focus on rating the content of the entire page. WIth >> blogs and social network sites where content exists in smaller units >> of differing theme and authorship, this seems inadequate. >> >> 2. The specifications are robust enough that they are complicated on >> a level where people don't bother with them. >> >> Sticking a simple declaration on the element level is much easier and >> simpler for content authors. >>> >> >> >> On Dec 30, 2006, at 3:22 AM, bjonkman@sobac.com wrote: >> >>> A new comment has been posted on your blog The Frosty Mug >>> Revolution, on entry #41577 (A Semantic Solution for Presenting >>> NSFW Content). >>> >>> View this comment: >>> Edit this comment: >> __mode=view&id=1605214&_type=comment&blog_id=12> >>> >>> IP Address: 206.248.137.186 >>> Name: Bob Jonkman >>> Email Address: bjonkman@sobac.com >>> URL: >>> Comments: >>> >>> I think you may be re-inventing the wheel: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/PICS/ >>> >>> >>> --Bob. ------- End of forwarded message ------- From karl at w3.org Tue Jan 2 22:17:12 2007 From: karl at w3.org (Karl Dubost) Date: Tue Jan 2 22:17:56 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] FYI: Location Types Registry - RFC 4589 Message-ID: For information http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4589.txt Abstract This document creates a registry for describing the types of places a human or end system might be found. The registry is then referenced by other protocols that need a common set of location terms as protocol constants. Examples of location terms defined in this document include aircraft, office, and train station. Note: Though as usual, this kind of things are very biased towards western barbarians. -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/ *** Be Strict To Be Cool *** From brian.suda at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 02:13:14 2007 From: brian.suda at gmail.com (Brian Suda) Date: Wed Jan 3 02:13:21 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] I have filled in the hCalendar profile page; please check for accuracy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21e770780701030213g380763d7q4cc6af758478eeab@mail.gmail.com> On 1/1/07, Costello, Roger L. wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I have filled in the hCalendar profile page: > > http://microformats.org/wiki/hcalendar-profile > > Hopefully I have done it correctly. Please check it for accuracy. --- that is a good start, have a look at the hCard profile[1] it references the RFC so that any semantics and text are not lost during the conversion. -brian [1] - http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-profile -- brian suda http://suda.co.uk From brian.suda at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 02:25:59 2007 From: brian.suda at gmail.com (Brian Suda) Date: Wed Jan 3 02:26:02 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] tagging in hCalendar & hCard In-Reply-To: <8tv1iDSBiWmFFw6Z@pigsonthewing.org.uk> References: <8tv1iDSBiWmFFw6Z@pigsonthewing.org.uk> Message-ID: <21e770780701030225s72d31d19h2a4fb07ebd2847df@mail.gmail.com> On 1/1/07, Andy Mabbett wrote: > The 'wiki' page on xFolk: > > > > says: > > "If you need to define tags as part of a more specialised > format, rel="tag" is the recommended way to do so, and xFolk, > hReview, hCard and hCalendar all do this." > > Yet there is no mention of this, that I can find, on any of the > hCalendar pages. > > Is its application to hCalendar documented, somewhere? Indeed, is it > true, or is it just wishful thinking? --- the hCard wiki pages are more complete than the hCalendar ones. Most of the hCalendar documentation has not been completed yet, so you should not assume it is finished yet. The categories in hCalendar work in a very similar fashion to the hCard, using rel="tag" along with class="categories". The presents of a rel="tag" attribute and value help parsers to determine WHERE to extract the data from. (if this is a topic of interest/confusion please email the dev-list) > Similarly, the only reference to it on the hCard pages, seems to be: > > > > with no mention in the examples or on the cheat-sheet. Which cheat-sheet are you talking about? the wiki, the PDF at ilovejackdaniels.com or the one at suda.co.uk? We now have several to choose from and keep uptodate and in sync. If you are referring to the one at suda.co.uk, then which microformat are you referring too? the hCalendar example DOES have a class="category" and a rel="tag", but the hCald only has class="category". According to the wiki, the rel="tag" portion "can optionally be represented by tags with rel-tag", so the cheat sheet is not incorrect, but at the moment only represents ONE way of encoding categories. I am open to suggestions on how to possibly represent the whole rel attribute as optional, but again, the cheat sheet is not an "end-all be-all" for representing microformats. It is a cheat sheet not a spec. -brian -- brian suda http://suda.co.uk From brian.suda at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 02:31:26 2007 From: brian.suda at gmail.com (Brian Suda) Date: Wed Jan 3 02:31:29 2007 Subject: Scope of tags (Was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw") In-Reply-To: References: <200701012003.l01K3B07014249@microformats.org> Message-ID: <21e770780701030231y26b16655if066d2bc156d9149@mail.gmail.com> On 1/1/07, Andy Mabbett wrote: > In message <200701012003.l01K3B07014249@microformats.org>, Eran > writes > > Suppose Sue publishes a family tree as a series of web pages, one for > each person. > > On her own page, she has: > http://example.com/sue.html > Title: Sue Smith > > Jane Fred > |_____________.______________| > | > Sue > > with an hCard for each person. If they tag Fred as "deceased", then > they, too, are shown as deceased. Not good. --- i?m not sure how you came to that conclusion? certainly aggregators would mark that the page is "about" the term "deceased" but it wouldn?t make an assumption about individual hCards? and depending on the mark-up if Sue is NOT nested inside Fred?s hCard, then there is a distinction between where/what/who the rel-tag is relating. We are dabbling in theoretical territory, do you have a page that has been marked-up somewhere and that page is being misinterpreted by aggregators and parsers? if so please let us know so we can help diagnose the problem. -brian -- brian suda http://suda.co.uk From brian.suda at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 02:52:34 2007 From: brian.suda at gmail.com (Brian Suda) Date: Wed Jan 3 02:52:37 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Conference Schedule Creator In-Reply-To: <8a52ddad0701021634wa34a25dld4e89286974c046f@mail.gmail.com> References: <8a52ddad0701021634wa34a25dld4e89286974c046f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <21e770780701030252na2fe807j91c779eab09d420@mail.gmail.com> On 1/3/07, Dmitry Baranovskiy wrote: > Link: http://dmitry.baranovskiy.com/work/csc/ --- very cool! i?ll play around with this and see if i can break it, at first pass everything works great! two quick suggestions: 1) put all 24 hours in the time drop-down, right now it only goes from 5-23, (which for a conferences is pretty good range), but scheduling things like concerts might start at 22:00 and run into the wee hours of the morning. 2) spelling/grammar mistake. When you export the hCal->ICS link says "(Don't forget to fix an URL)" probably should be fix THE url? Otherwise this is a great little tool. I did notice that you can?t create an event that blocks 1 hour (say 6-7) then create an event that runs from 6:30 to 7:30. I know this your first go at the scheduler, and that sort of thing might be outside of the 80/20 usage, but something to keep in mind. As i use this scheduler, i?ll let you know any issues i find. You should create a page on the wiki about this app, so when people find issues and or feature requests that can be documented and referenced. Thanks, -brian -- brian suda http://suda.co.uk From costello at mitre.org Wed Jan 3 04:07:15 2007 From: costello at mitre.org (Costello, Roger L.) Date: Wed Jan 3 04:07:20 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] The Wisdom of Microformats Message-ID: Hi Folks, In his book, The Wisdom of Crowds, James Suroweicki says that to effectively harness the collective intelligence of a crowd - such as the Web - there needs to be the right balance between: - making individual knowledge globally and collectively useful - allowing individual knowledge to remain resolutely specific and local It occurs to me that the microformats approach has found the right balance: - microformats provide the hooks that enable individual knowledge to be collected, aggregated, and processed - simultaneously, at the local level web page developers are empowered to express their individual knowledge in a fashion that is best suited to their specific problem Outstanding! /Roger From s-leary at tamu.edu Wed Jan 3 08:04:09 2007 From: s-leary at tamu.edu (Stephanie Leary) Date: Wed Jan 3 08:04:17 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Conference Schedule Creator In-Reply-To: <21e770780701030252na2fe807j91c779eab09d420@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/3/07 4:52 AM, "Brian Suda" wrote: > Otherwise this is a great little tool. I did notice that you can?t > create an event that blocks 1 hour (say 6-7) then create an event that > runs from 6:30 to 7:30. Possibly related: I created a couple of all-day events (9:00-17:00) and then couldn't add a one-hour event (9:00-10:00). -- Stephanie Leary Web Communications Specialist The Texas A&M University System tamus.edu From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 10:52:20 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 10:53:47 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Michael MD's wrong time (was: Conference Schedule Creator) In-Reply-To: <002001c72f7b$df2698c0$116bacca@COMCEN> References: <8a52ddad0701021706y4a186689odc4f3ad3bf52503f@mail.gmail.com> <002001c72f7b$df2698c0$116bacca@COMCEN> Message-ID: <4bmU$tukt$mFFwJp@pigsonthewing.org.uk> In message <002001c72f7b$df2698c0$116bacca@COMCEN>, Michael MD writes >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 13:12:27 -0800 I think you need to fix that! -- Andy Mabbett Merry Bloomin' Christmas! From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 13:59:16 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 14:00:45 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] tagging in hCalendar & hCard In-Reply-To: <21e770780701030225s72d31d19h2a4fb07ebd2847df@mail.gmail.com> References: <8tv1iDSBiWmFFw6Z@pigsonthewing.org.uk> <21e770780701030225s72d31d19h2a4fb07ebd2847df@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <21e770780701030225s72d31d19h2a4fb07ebd2847df@mail.gmail.com>, Brian Suda writes >On 1/1/07, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> The 'wiki' page on xFolk: >> >> >> >> says: >> >> "If you need to define tags as part of a more specialised >> format, rel="tag" is the recommended way to do so, and xFolk, >> hReview, hCard and hCalendar all do this." >> >> Yet there is no mention of this, that I can find, on any of the >> hCalendar pages. >> >> Is its application to hCalendar documented, somewhere? Indeed, is it >> true, or is it just wishful thinking? > >--- the hCard wiki pages are more complete than the hCalendar ones. >Most of the hCalendar documentation has not been completed yet, so you >should not assume it is finished yet. And yet hCalendar is listed as a full spec on the main page, not a draft? > The categories in hCalendar work >in a very similar fashion to the hCard, using rel="tag" along with >class="categories". Thank you. Are they free form, or is their a set list to choose from? >The presents of a rel="tag" attribute and value help parsers to >determine WHERE to extract the data from. (if this is a topic of >interest/confusion please email the dev-list) It is, but I'm not a parser developer - so am I allowed to do so? >> Similarly, the only reference to it on the hCard pages, seems to be: >> >> >> >> with no mention in the examples or on the cheat-sheet. > >Which cheat-sheet are you talking about? the wiki, the PDF at >ilovejackdaniels.com or the one at suda.co.uk? We now have several to >choose from and keep uptodate and in sync. I was referring to the cheat-sheet on the 'wiki' which I thought was in sync with your PDF - I see now that that is not the case. >If you are referring to the one at suda.co.uk, then which microformat >are you referring too? the hCalendar example DOES have a >class="category" and a rel="tag", but the hCald only has >class="category". According to the wiki, the rel="tag" portion "can >optionally be represented by tags with rel-tag", so the cheat sheet is >not incorrect, but at the moment only represents ONE way of encoding >categories. What other ways are there? >I am open to suggestions on how to possibly represent the whole rel >attribute as optional, Do the current indicators not allow for that? Otherwise, would a footnote suffice? >but again, the cheat sheet is not an "end-all >be-all" for representing microformats. It is a cheat sheet not a spec. Indeed. Where is the definitive, canonical and unambiguous hCalendar spec? -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 14:08:02 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 14:09:29 2007 Subject: Scope of tags (Was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw") In-Reply-To: <21e770780701030231y26b16655if066d2bc156d9149@mail.gmail.com> References: <200701012003.l01K3B07014249@microformats.org> <21e770780701030231y26b16655if066d2bc156d9149@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <21e770780701030231y26b16655if066d2bc156d9149@mail.gmail.com>, Brian Suda writes >> Suppose Sue publishes a family tree as a series of web pages, one for >> each person. >> >> On her own page, she has: > >> http://example.com/sue.html >> Title: Sue Smith >> >> Jane Fred >> |_____________.______________| >> | >> Sue >> >> with an hCard for each person. If they tag Fred as "deceased", then >> they, too, are shown as deceased. Not good. > >--- i?m not sure how you came to that conclusion? On: By adding rel="tag" to a hyperlink, a page indicates that the destination of that hyperlink is an author-designated "tag" (or keyword/subject) for the current page. Note that a tag may just refer to a major portion of the current page > certainly >aggregators would mark that the page is "about" the term "deceased" >but it wouldn?t make an assumption about individual hCards? and >depending on the mark-up if Sue is NOT nested inside Fred?s hCard, >then there is a distinction between where/what/who the rel-tag is >relating. There is? Where, on the rel-tag spec, is that made clear? >We are dabbling in theoretical territory, Unlike some, I have no allergy to "theoretical territory". Indeed, it's a pre-requisite to science. >do you have a page that has >been marked-up somewhere and that page is being misinterpreted by >aggregators and parsers? if so please let us know so we can help >diagnose the problem. I am not planning on using rel-tag (especially not in hCard and hCalendar) until this and some of the other issues with it have been resolved. I suspect I'm not alone in that. I also can't lay an egg, but I can tell when one has gone off ;-) -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 14:25:55 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 14:27:01 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ? Message-ID: The FAQ is getting long. I propose splitting it into two or more parts. Would that be OK with everyone? How should it be done? It might break some links :-( -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From bewest at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 14:31:45 2007 From: bewest at gmail.com (Benjamin West) Date: Wed Jan 3 14:31:48 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ad71be30701031431p2f36b9ecsaa56974362a15459@mail.gmail.com> I don't see any reason for splitting this. What is the problem and why does it need to be split? How would splitting solve that problem? It looks great to me as-is. Ben On 1/3/07, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > The FAQ is getting long. I propose > splitting it into two or more parts. > > Would that be OK with everyone? How should it be done? > > It might break some links :-( > > -- > Andy Mabbett > * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: > * Free Our Data: > * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? > _______________________________________________ > microformats-discuss mailing list > microformats-discuss@microformats.org > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 14:41:47 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 14:43:13 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] More censorship on the 'wiki' Message-ID: Folks might like to know that dissenting opinion is still being censored from the 'wiki': -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From bewest at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 14:49:35 2007 From: bewest at gmail.com (Benjamin West) Date: Wed Jan 3 14:49:37 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] More censorship on the 'wiki' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ad71be30701031449y3bdb963dm4148bcc9bf4e0da3@mail.gmail.com> Off topic rants don't belong on the wiki. It's not helpful. Furthermore, questions without answers don't belong on -faq pages. An unresolved question is called an issue, and belongs on the -issues pages. Ben On 1/3/07, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > Folks might like to know that dissenting opinion is still being censored > from the 'wiki': > > > > -- > Andy Mabbett > * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: > * Free Our Data: > * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? > _______________________________________________ > microformats-discuss mailing list > microformats-discuss@microformats.org > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 14:53:01 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 14:54:42 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ? In-Reply-To: <8ad71be30701031431p2f36b9ecsaa56974362a15459@mail.gmail.com> References: <8ad71be30701031431p2f36b9ecsaa56974362a15459@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <8ad71be30701031431p2f36b9ecsaa56974362a15459@mail.gmail.com>, Benjamin West writes >I don't see any reason for splitting this. What is the problem and >why does it need to be split? How would splitting solve that problem? >It looks great to me as-is. 1) please don't top post, per 2) The answer to your first two, tautological, questions (and by implication your last) is contained in my post, Please (re)read it. -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From fberriman at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 14:59:52 2007 From: fberriman at gmail.com (Frances Berriman) Date: Wed Jan 3 14:59:55 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ? In-Reply-To: References: <8ad71be30701031431p2f36b9ecsaa56974362a15459@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 03/01/07, Andy Mabbett wrote: > 2) The answer to your first two, tautological, questions (and by > implication your last) is contained in my post, Please (re)read it. I read your email. I don't see your concerns outlined. I have no problems with how the FAQ currently is. -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 15:02:45 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:04:19 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] More censorship on the 'wiki' In-Reply-To: <8ad71be30701031449y3bdb963dm4148bcc9bf4e0da3@mail.gmail.com> References: <8ad71be30701031449y3bdb963dm4148bcc9bf4e0da3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <8ad71be30701031449y3bdb963dm4148bcc9bf4e0da3@mail.gmail.com>, Benjamin West writes Please don't top post, per >Off topic rants don't belong on the wiki. It's not helpful. I agree, but since my comments were neither off-topic nor ranting, that's a straw man which we can dispense with. >Furthermore, questions without answers don't belong on -faq pages. That's an interesting, but far from irrefutable, opinion. Since I was requesting answers to them, it's also bordering on being another straw man. > An >unresolved question is called an issue, and belongs on the -issues I'm quite confident that both of the *questions* I asked are resolved; I simply don't know the answers to them. The censored comment was pointing out that they could have been answered, in less time than it took to move them (not to mention moving them, describing them in a derogatory fashion and bleating about having to do so, in IRC). -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From tantek at cs.stanford.edu Wed Jan 3 15:07:35 2007 From: tantek at cs.stanford.edu (Tantek =?ISO-8859-1?B?xw==?=elik) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:07:27 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 1/3/07 2:53 PM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > In message > <8ad71be30701031431p2f36b9ecsaa56974362a15459@mail.gmail.com>, Benjamin > West writes > >> I don't see any reason for splitting this. What is the problem and >> why does it need to be split? How would splitting solve that problem? >> It looks great to me as-is. > > 1) please don't top post, per > > > 2) The answer to your first two, tautological, questions (and by > implication your last) is contained in my post, Please (re)read it. Andy, Wasting list time with organization/bureaucratic issues is both not-ok and undesirable. Please refrain from sending organizational/bureaucratic/meta questions to the mailing list, and from performing wiki-(re)-organization as at this point it is wasting enough time of other people to clean-up your unilateral edits as to be tax on the community. Put another way, please refocus your efforts on actual substantiative microformats contributions and not meta-discussions/efforts. Thanks, Tantek From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 15:08:27 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:08:41 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] 'wiki' management, uF style Message-ID: Do as I say: do not undo editor edits, especially twice or more times, as that is grounds for being banned not as I do: 1. 2. 3. Will Tantek now be banning himself? -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From strategicpause at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 15:10:56 2007 From: strategicpause at gmail.com (Nick Peters) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:10:58 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="tag" Message-ID: Seeing the tag implementation on Operator has made me question the existing tagging standard. With wordpress you may get something like "?cat=13" for a tag or something that may not even be the intended tag at all. After doing some research on the wiki I see that the rel="tag" microformat is based off of existing defacto standards (implemented by sites such as del.icio.us and flickr). I still don't see why the standard extracts the tag from the last part of the URL instead of the information inside the anchor tag. When I see a tag and click on it, I expect the visible content, not what's appended to the end of a URL. Anyone care to shed some light on this for me? -Nick From tantek at cs.stanford.edu Wed Jan 3 15:11:35 2007 From: tantek at cs.stanford.edu (Tantek =?ISO-8859-1?B?xw==?=elik) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:11:35 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] More censorship on the 'wiki' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 1/3/07 3:02 PM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > In message > <8ad71be30701031449y3bdb963dm4148bcc9bf4e0da3@mail.gmail.com>, Benjamin > West writes > >> Off topic rants don't belong on the wiki. It's not helpful. > > I agree, but since my comments were neither off-topic nor ranting, > that's a straw man which we can dispense with. I agree with Ben that your comments were both off-topic and ranting. Your response to Ben is simple contradiction of his statement, and does not provide any new relevant information and is therefore a waste of time. If you wish to argue something, present new information, not just contradiction. >> Furthermore, questions without answers don't belong on -faq pages. > > That's an interesting, but far from irrefutable, opinion. It is not just an opinion, it is existing practice in the community. > Since I was > requesting answers to them, it's also bordering on being another straw > man. Open questions are open issues until they are answered, then depending on whether they are worthy enough to be considered "frequent", their answers may be moved to an FAQ. >> An >> unresolved question is called an issue, and belongs on the -issues > > I'm quite confident that both of the *questions* I asked are resolved; I > simply don't know the answers to them. If you don't know the answers to them, then from your perspective they are issues. Leave the moving to the FAQ to the editors of the respective spec. > The censored comment Please stop making false claims. Nothing is censored in a wiki where edit histories are public. Thanks, Tantek From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 15:10:26 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:12:05 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ? In-Reply-To: References: <8ad71be30701031431p2f36b9ecsaa56974362a15459@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message , Frances Berriman writes >On 03/01/07, Andy Mabbett wrote: > >> 2) The answer to your first two, tautological, questions (and by >> implication your last) is contained in my post, Please (re)read it. > >I read your email. I don't see your concerns outlined. Then I suggest that you did not read it well. Try reading the first sentence again. -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From tantek at cs.stanford.edu Wed Jan 3 15:14:32 2007 From: tantek at cs.stanford.edu (Tantek =?ISO-8859-1?B?xw==?=elik) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:14:23 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] 'wiki' management, uF style In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 1/3/07 3:08 PM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > > Do as I say: > > > > do not undo editor edits, especially twice or more times, as Andy, RTFC: ^^^^^^ > that is grounds for being banned > > > not as I do: > > 1. > > 2. > eferences> > > 3. > eferences> > > Will Tantek now be banning himself? No, because Tantek is an editor of the spec (hCard) as noted, Andy is not. This is your second meta-discussion email you have sent after being requested to stop doing so. I recommend you voluntarily refrain from emailing microformats lists for 24 hours at this point. One more meta-discussion email from you after you have been asked to stop will be grounds for banning from the lists. Thanks, Tantek From fberriman at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 15:17:11 2007 From: fberriman at gmail.com (Frances Berriman) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:17:14 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="tag" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 03/01/07, Nick Peters wrote: > Seeing the tag implementation on Operator has made me question the > existing tagging standard. With wordpress you may get something like > "?cat=13" for a tag or something that may not even be the intended tag > at all. After doing some research on the wiki I see that the > rel="tag" microformat is based off of existing defacto standards > (implemented by sites such as del.icio.us and flickr). I still don't > see why the standard extracts the tag from the last part of the URL > instead of the information inside the anchor tag. When I see a tag > and click on it, I expect the visible content, not what's appended to > the end of a URL. Anyone care to shed some light on this for me? > -Nick I might be misunderstanding you, but I think you might be confusing categorisation with tagging (the latter being a method of adding additional context)? -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com From fberriman at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 15:18:18 2007 From: fberriman at gmail.com (Frances Berriman) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:18:21 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ? In-Reply-To: References: <8ad71be30701031431p2f36b9ecsaa56974362a15459@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 03/01/07, Andy Mabbett wrote: > In message , > Frances Berriman writes > > >On 03/01/07, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > > >> 2) The answer to your first two, tautological, questions (and by > >> implication your last) is contained in my post, Please (re)read it. > > > >I read your email. I don't see your concerns outlined. > > Then I suggest that you did not read it well. > > Try reading the first sentence again. > "getting too long"? -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 15:20:29 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:22:22 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec "References" Message-ID: Some time ago, I added two informative references: to the hCard main page: Tantek has made clear recently, after I added a third: that doing so is reason for being "banned": do not add previously non-referenced in the spec "References" [...] as that is grounds for being banned so I have now removed them: -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From tantek at cs.stanford.edu Wed Jan 3 15:27:20 2007 From: tantek at cs.stanford.edu (Tantek =?ISO-8859-1?B?xw==?=elik) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:27:10 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec "References" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 1/3/07 3:20 PM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > > Some time ago, I added two informative references: > > > > > > to the hCard main page: > > > > Tantek has made clear recently, after I added a third: > > > > that doing so is reason for being "banned": > > > > do not add previously non-referenced in the spec "References" > [...] as that is grounds for being banned No you misread the comment. Your passive-aggressive re-editing of the wiki and undoing editor edits repeatedly (twice or more) is grounds fore being banned. You have already been banned once (for 24 hours) for such behavior before. I recommend you also voluntarily refrain from microformats wiki edits for 24 hours at this point. Thanks, Tantek From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 15:35:10 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:36:35 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec "References" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CVEJN7u2DnFFwhb@pigsonthewing.org.uk> In message , Andy Mabbett writes > two informative references: [...] >so I have now removed them: Apologies; the correct edit was: Though, bizarrely, Tantek has reverted that. So, it seems that it *is* OK for me to add 'previously non-referenced in the spec "References"', *except* when Tantek orders me not to add 'previously non-referenced in the spec "References"'. I confess, I'm confused. Can anyone tell me how I'm supposed to keno when I can, and when I cannot add such informative references? Or are the rules just created and ignored according to whim? -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 15:38:50 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:40:48 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] 'wiki' management, uF style In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <$CcFZv7K6DnFFwhB@pigsonthewing.org.uk> In message , Tantek ?elik writes >> >> do not undo editor edits, especially twice or more times, as > >Andy, RTFC: ^^^^^^ I have no idea what "RTFC", though if the first three letters mean the same as in RTFM, kindly moderate your language, > >> that is grounds for being banned >> >> >> not as I do: >> >> 1. >> >> 2. >> >rmative_R >> eferences> >> >> 3. >> >rmative_R >> eferences> >> >> Will Tantek now be banning himself? > >No, because Tantek is an editor of the spec (hCard) as noted, Andy is not. Editor: one ho edits (and, ona Wiki, one who uses the "edit" button. Or are we not speaking the same language? >This is your second meta-discussion email you have sent after being >requested to stop doing so. I have received no such request. >I recommend you voluntarily refrain from emailing microformats lists for 24 >hours at this point. One more meta-discussion email from you after you have >been asked to stop will be grounds for banning from the lists. "Voluntary refraining" under threat of a ban is not voluntary - or are we not speaking the same language? I repeat, I have received no such request. -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 15:41:00 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:42:40 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="tag" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , Nick Peters writes >When I see a tag >and click on it, I expect the visible content, not what's appended to >the end of a URL. Anyone care to shed some light on this for me? Yes, it's a potential minefield: -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 15:45:39 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:47:56 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] More censorship on the 'wiki' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , Tantek ?elik writes >On 1/3/07 3:02 PM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > >> In message >> <8ad71be30701031449y3bdb963dm4148bcc9bf4e0da3@mail.gmail.com>, Benjamin >> West writes >> >>> Off topic rants don't belong on the wiki. It's not helpful. >> >> I agree, but since my comments were neither off-topic nor ranting, >> that's a straw man which we can dispense with. > >I agree with Ben that your comments were both off-topic and ranting. Your >response to Ben is simple contradiction of his statement, and does not >provide any new relevant information and is therefore a waste of time. If >you wish to argue something, present new information, not just >contradiction. I did. >>> Furthermore, questions without answers don't belong on -faq pages. >> >> That's an interesting, but far from irrefutable, opinion. > >It is not just an opinion, it is existing practice in the community. Tosh. You have only just revered my edit of 19 November: and no-one in the community has raised any issue with that in the intervening period. >> Since I was >> requesting answers to them, it's also bordering on being another straw >> man. > >Open questions are open issues until they are answered I have already addressed this in the post to which you respond. [...] >>> An >>> unresolved question is called an issue, and belongs on the -issues >> >> I'm quite confident that both of the *questions* I asked are resolved; I >> simply don't know the answers to them. > >If you don't know the answers to them, then from your perspective they are >issues. Don't attempt to speak for me. > Leave the moving to the FAQ to the editors of the respective spec. What else do you thing I was doing by asking here? (Though I would have thought you would have wanted to say "the community". >> The censored comment > >Please stop making false claims. Nothing is censored in a wiki where edit >histories are public. Balderdash. >Thanks, For what? -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From drernie at opendarwin.org Wed Jan 3 15:48:16 2007 From: drernie at opendarwin.org (Dr. Ernie Prabhakar) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:48:19 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] 'wiki' management, uF style In-Reply-To: <$CcFZv7K6DnFFwhB@pigsonthewing.org.uk> References: <$CcFZv7K6DnFFwhB@pigsonthewing.org.uk> Message-ID: <0E0C81DA-1D9F-4E82-BA8F-DAC9AFE9A679@opendarwin.org> Hi Andy, On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> I recommend you voluntarily refrain from emailing microformats >> lists for 24 >> hours at this point. One more meta-discussion email from you >> after you have >> been asked to stop will be grounds for banning from the lists. > > "Voluntary refraining" under threat of a ban is not voluntary - or are > we not speaking the same language? For what it is worth, *I* think his meaning is pretty clear. a) You are treading on thin ice b) One more inappropriate post and you *will* be banned c) Given that you seem to have a poor sense of what Tantek (and others) consider off-topic, it would be wise for you to take at least 24 hours off to let things cool down. I do value some of the contributions you have made, but I agree with Tantek that it would be healthier for the community if you took a break. If you are sincerely confused about why you've gotten the reaction you have, feel free to email me offlist. Cheers, -- Ernie P. From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 15:47:56 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:49:26 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec "References" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , Tantek ?elik writes >Your passive-aggressive re-editing of the wiki and undoing editor edits >repeatedly (twice or more) is grounds fore being banned. You appear not to know what "passive aggressive" behaviour is. > You have already been banned once (for 24 hours) for such behavior >before. No, I have been blocked from editing *by you* for trying to defend my comments on my user-page from your unwarranted and unwelcome interference. >I recommend you also voluntarily refrain from microformats wiki edits >for 24 hours at this point. I note your recommendation and reject it. Or is it a veiled threat? -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From tantek at cs.stanford.edu Wed Jan 3 15:51:09 2007 From: tantek at cs.stanford.edu (Tantek =?ISO-8859-1?B?xw==?=elik) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:50:59 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] 'wiki' management, uF style In-Reply-To: <$CcFZv7K6DnFFwhB@pigsonthewing.org.uk> Message-ID: On 1/3/07 3:38 PM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > In message , Tantek ?elik > writes > > >>> Will Tantek now be banning himself? >> >> No, because Tantek is an editor of the spec (hCard) as noted, Andy is not. > > Editor: one ho edits (and, ona Wiki, one who uses the "edit" button. Or > are we not speaking the same language? See hCard specification[1], the "Editor", right there at the top. >> This is your second meta-discussion email you have sent after being >> requested to stop doing so. > > I have received no such request. You have, in email, publicly, on this list received a request. >> I recommend you voluntarily refrain from emailing microformats lists for 24 >> hours at this point. One more meta-discussion email from you after you have >> been asked to stop will be grounds for banning from the lists. > > "Voluntary refraining" under threat of a ban is not voluntary - or are > we not speaking the same language? I asked you to voluntarily refrain from *any* emailing the microformats lists for 24 hours. The threat of a ban is for continuing to send *meta-discussion* emails, as you have. That is, I suggested you take a break in general, though if you wanted to you could proceed by limiting yourself to on-topic, substantiative emails that actually are about improving microformats. Tantek From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 15:50:45 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:52:05 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , Tantek ?elik writes >>> I don't see any reason for splitting this. What is the problem and >>> why does it need to be split? How would splitting solve that problem? >>> It looks great to me as-is. >> >> 1) please don't top post, per >> >> >> 2) The answer to your first two, tautological, questions (and by >> implication your last) is contained in my post, Please (re)read it. >Wasting list time with organization/bureaucratic issues is both not-ok >and undesirable. Since I'm not doing that, it's another straw-man. >Please refrain from sending organizational/bureaucratic/meta questions >to the mailing list, and from performing wiki-(re)-organization Is this a request, or an instruction? >as at this point it is wasting enough time of other people to clean-up >your unilateral edits as to be tax on the community. My "unilateral edits"? How are my edits different from any other editor's? Not to mention that the very post to which you reply is about me asking the community how it wants pages to be edited! >Put another way, please refocus your efforts on actual substantiative >microformats contributions and not meta-discussions/efforts. Again, a request or an instruction? -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 15:51:00 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 15:52:45 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ? In-Reply-To: References: <8ad71be30701031431p2f36b9ecsaa56974362a15459@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: In message , Frances Berriman writes >> >I read your email. I don't see your concerns outlined. >> >> Then I suggest that you did not read it well. >> >> Try reading the first sentence again. >> > >"getting too long"? Yes. -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From tantek at cs.stanford.edu Wed Jan 3 16:01:09 2007 From: tantek at cs.stanford.edu (Tantek =?ISO-8859-1?B?xw==?=elik) Date: Wed Jan 3 16:00:58 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec "References" In-Reply-To: <7CVEJN7u2DnFFwhb@pigsonthewing.org.uk> Message-ID: On 1/3/07 3:35 PM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > In message , Andy Mabbett > writes > >> two informative references: > [...] >> so I have now removed them: > > Apologies; the correct edit was: > > > > Though, bizarrely, Tantek has reverted that. ^^^^^^^^^ Please refrain from making ad-hominem attacks on the mailing list. > So, it seems that it *is* OK for me to add 'previously non-referenced in > the spec "References"', The E.123 reference was informative reference that provided a nice informative summary of a normative reference was only available by paid document, thus was not previously non-referenced. In addition, to make it even more clear I added a section that noted that authors MAY wish to use E.123 formatting for their telephone numbers. > *except* when Tantek orders me not to add > 'previously non-referenced in the spec "References"'. No, the coordinates references was both previously non-referenced, and not particularly relevant. I made an editor judgment call to remove a seemingly not-very-related link and removed it. That is sufficient reason. Finally, note that this is yet another meta-discussion email that you have sent, and thus as promised, absent any objections from anyone else on the list (or IRC), you will shortly be banned from the mailing-list for a week. I am sorry to do this, but your continued inability to listen to the requests that have been made, and your continued flood of meta-discussion emails on the list have left me no other choice in order to maintain the quality of discussion on this list. Thanks, Tantek From bewest at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 16:02:34 2007 From: bewest at gmail.com (Benjamin West) Date: Wed Jan 3 16:02:37 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Splitting the FAQ? In-Reply-To: References: <8ad71be30701031431p2f36b9ecsaa56974362a15459@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ad71be30701031602t1e039813n5400d1d7a3bf582c@mail.gmail.com> I don't recommend splitting it. I'm not sure what "too long" means. My guess is that if you do make such a change, it'll be reverted. Ben On 1/3/07, Andy Mabbett wrote: > In message > , Frances > Berriman writes > > >> >I read your email. I don't see your concerns outlined. > >> > >> Then I suggest that you did not read it well. > >> > >> Try reading the first sentence again. > >> > > > >"getting too long"? > > Yes. > > -- > Andy Mabbett > * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: > * Free Our Data: > * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? > _______________________________________________ > microformats-discuss mailing list > microformats-discuss@microformats.org > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 16:04:38 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 16:05:53 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] 'wiki' management, uF style In-Reply-To: References: <$CcFZv7K6DnFFwhB@pigsonthewing.org.uk> Message-ID: In message , Tantek ?elik writes >On 1/3/07 3:38 PM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > >> In message , Tantek ?elik >> writes >>>Tantek is an editor of the spec (hCard) as noted, Andy is not. >> >> Editor: one ho edits (and, ona Wiki, one who uses the "edit" button. Or >> are we not speaking the same language? > >See hCard specification[1], the "Editor", right there at the top. If you wish a word to have meaning other than that usually used, its wise to say so when you use it. >>> This is your second meta-discussion email you have sent after being >>> requested to stop doing so. >> >> I have received no such request. > >You have, in email, publicly, on this list received a request. > >83.html> I repeat: at the time I wrote the above, I had *received* no such request. (I have since received, and replied to, it.) >>> I recommend you voluntarily refrain from emailing microformats lists for 24 >>> hours at this point. One more meta-discussion email from you after you have >>> been asked to stop will be grounds for banning from the lists. >> >> "Voluntary refraining" under threat of a ban is not voluntary - or are >> we not speaking the same language? > >I asked you to voluntarily refrain from *any* emailing the microformats >lists for 24 hours. I note your request and reject it. >The threat of a ban is for continuing to send *meta-discussion* emails, as >you have. You would deny me the right to refute your allegations and state my defence? My "request", do you mean "instruction"? Again, if you wish a word to have meaning other than that usually used, its wise to say so when you use it. >That is, I suggested you take a break in general, though if you >wanted to you could proceed by limiting yourself to on-topic, substantiative >emails that actually are about improving microformats. Every single one of my e-mails to this list has that as its aim. I shall cease posting shortly, but only because I am going to bed. -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From dmitry.baranovskiy at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 16:09:28 2007 From: dmitry.baranovskiy at gmail.com (Dmitry Baranovskiy) Date: Wed Jan 3 16:09:31 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Conference Schedule Creator In-Reply-To: References: <21e770780701030252na2fe807j91c779eab09d420@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8a52ddad0701031609p4520c9f4obefec35b93cc9b3b@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Brian and Stephanie for your feedback. I've fixed two issues Brian was pointing to. Initially I added a little restriction to time range, because if you put two events (9:00?10:00) and (9:30?9:55) I don't really know which one should go first. But you are right, I will left it to user to decide. If he/she will put ugly data he/she will see ugly table. I divide time in sessions and didn't allow user to overlap them. So, I removed this restriction now. Hope it will help. Now who should approve it to push it on Code section of microformats page? I hope it deserve an honour to stand next to hCalendar creator? So far I will update wiki, if nobody against. -- Best regards, Dmitry Baranovskiy http://dmitry.baranovskiy.com From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 16:09:43 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 16:11:15 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw" In-Reply-To: <459AE55A.8920.27C3BC6@bjonkman.sobac.com> References: <3ce2ebd20612290330o64570245h4bf01ca5378a6ee6@mail.gmail.com> <6ca82b0f0701010418h4911da4bn237ed112dbc1569c@mail.gmail.com> <459AE55A.8920.27C3BC6@bjonkman.sobac.com> Message-ID: In message <459AE55A.8920.27C3BC6@bjonkman.sobac.com>, Bob Jonkman quoted PJ Doland: >If people have to categorize HOW something might be considered NSFW >(nudity, language, violence, nudity & language, etc.) it's going to >make them less likely to use the standard in practice. That's supposition, presented as fact. >As I've said earlier, I think PICS and ICRA failed because of their >complexity. That, too, is no more than an opinion; it's my opinion that they failed because only highly-complex, finley-granular categiorisation can succeed (though I can of course see that that brings with it other problems). [...] >Adoption of this as a general standard could be VERY helpful for wider >adoption of microformats as a whole [...] and that's hyperbole, with no apparent justification. -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From kmarks at technorati.com Wed Jan 3 16:16:05 2007 From: kmarks at technorati.com (Kevin Marks) Date: Wed Jan 3 16:16:18 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="tag" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Nick Peters wrote: > Seeing the tag implementation on Operator has made me question the > existing tagging standard. With wordpress you may get something like > "?cat=13" for a tag or something that may not even be the intended tag > at all. Yes, Wordpress abuses the rel="tag" spec by doing that, so I have had to code round it at Technorati. They can't do proper url path tags on all installs, but the code doesn't omit rel="tag" on the non-tag links. http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-tag#Tag_Spaces says > Tags may only be placed in the URL path, and only in the last segment > of the path. Tags may not be placed in query parameters or fragment > identifiers. e.g. > http://technorati.com/tag/tech?tag=fish#emu > is still a URL for the tag "tech", not "fish" or "emu". Actually, stripping parameters is recommended (that's why it says 'last path segment'). a previous implementation bug of mine at Technorati wasn't doing that properly. > After doing some research on the wiki I see that the > rel="tag" microformat is based off of existing defacto standards > (implemented by sites such as del.icio.us and flickr). I still don't > see why the standard extracts the tag from the last part of the URL > instead of the information inside the anchor tag. When I see a tag > and click on it, I expect the visible content, not what's appended to > the end of a URL. Anyone care to shed some light on this for me? The 'last path component of URL' part was based on existing practice by both del.icio.us and Flickr when we did the analysis. This was done to encourage use of these kinds of tagspaces, rather than just allowing linking to an arbitrary URL and using the link text. Setting up a tagspace does take a modest amount of webserver configuration, granted. From andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk Wed Jan 3 16:19:36 2007 From: andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk (Andy Mabbett) Date: Wed Jan 3 16:23:30 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec "References" In-Reply-To: References: <7CVEJN7u2DnFFwhb@pigsonthewing.org.uk> Message-ID: In message , Tantek ?elik writes >> Though, bizarrely, Tantek has reverted that. > ^^^^^^^^^ >Please refrain from making ad-hominem attacks on the mailing list. You appear not to know what "ad hominem means". > I made an editor judgment call [...] >That is sufficient reason. !! >Finally, note that this is yet another meta-discussion email that you >have sent, and thus as promised, absent any objections from anyone else >on the list (or IRC), you will shortly be banned from the mailing-list >for a week. I sent it *before* I received what was supposedly a *request* (and which I only afterwards understood may apparently have been an instruction). Is your e-mail not "meta discussion", also? >I am sorry to do this, but your continued inability to listen to the >requests that have been made, I have "listened" to, and rejected, every such *request*. > and your continued flood of meta-discussion emails on the list have >left me no other choice in order to maintain the quality of discussion >on this list. Take responsibility for your actions; spare us the patronising "no other choice" euphemism, please. -- Andy Mabbett * Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: * Free Our Data: * Are you using Microformats, yet: ? From tantek at cs.stanford.edu Wed Jan 3 16:30:24 2007 From: tantek at cs.stanford.edu (Tantek =?ISO-8859-1?B?xw==?=elik) Date: Wed Jan 3 16:30:15 2007 Subject: xFolk edits from November restored (was Re: [uf-discuss] More censorship on the 'wiki') In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 1/3/07 3:45 PM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > > Tosh. You have only just revered my edit of 19 November: > > > > and no-one in the community has raised any issue with that in the > intervening period. Apologies - an artifact of the way "revert" works on MediaWiki - it seems to revert ALL the edits made in a row by the same author. I have restored the edits from November and other edits unrelated to the edit that I intended to revert. Thanks, Tantek From kmarks at technorati.com Wed Jan 3 16:40:27 2007 From: kmarks at technorati.com (Kevin Marks) Date: Wed Jan 3 16:40:34 2007 Subject: Scope of tags (Was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw") In-Reply-To: References: <200701012003.l01K3B07014249@microformats.org> <21e770780701030231y26b16655if066d2bc156d9149@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <28e1487f9c06b0057017fc498b7b109a@technorati.com> On Jan 3, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On: > > > > By adding rel="tag" to a hyperlink, a page indicates that the > destination of that hyperlink is an author-designated "tag" (or > keyword/subject) for the current page. Note that a tag may just > refer to a major portion of the current page > >> certainly >> aggregators would mark that the page is "about" the term "deceased" >> but it wouldn?t make an assumption about individual hCards? and >> depending on the mark-up if Sue is NOT nested inside Fred?s hCard, >> then there is a distinction between where/what/who the rel-tag is >> relating. > > There is? Where, on the rel-tag spec, is that made clear? It's deliberately not defined there. Other microformats that incorporate rel-tag for more specific purposes define the scope (eg xfolk, hReview, rel-directory) From joe at andrieu.net Wed Jan 3 17:07:53 2007 From: joe at andrieu.net (Joe Andrieu) Date: Wed Jan 3 17:07:51 2007 Subject: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <007901c72f9c$c3b437c0$0201a8c0@andrieuhome> Tantek ? elik wrote: > Finally, note that this is yet another meta-discussion email > that you have sent, and thus as promised, absent any > objections from anyone else on the list (or IRC), you will > shortly be banned from the mailing-list for a week. Tantek, For the record, I do object. I understand that you are doing what you feel is the best interest of microformats. However, the mailing list is the only commons that speaks to the entire microformats community. It seems to me that if someone has an issue with governance, the commons is the right place to make a case, especially as there is no other vehicle for doing so. Governance so far has been autocratic and sometimes heavy handed. Your categorization of these topics as "meta-discussion" only reinforces the feeling that microformats is run by a cabal that refuses to address and incorporate feedback from its constituents. We have no formal mechanisms for approving or changing microformats, nor do we have any formal mechanisms for engaging on governance issues. These are serious shortcomings. Again, I encourage you to read the Clay Shirky article[1]. Andy, having said that, you do sometimes rub people the wrong way and it can make it hard to keep a positive disposition when discussing things with you. I'm also frustrated by the lack of engagement on governance issues and the wily-nilly approval/change process, but there's been good work done by this community and there's reason to hope that these issues will eventually be addressed. [1] http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html -j -- Joe Andrieu joe@andrieu.net +1 (805) 705-8651 From tantek at cs.stanford.edu Wed Jan 3 17:42:24 2007 From: tantek at cs.stanford.edu (Tantek =?ISO-8859-1?B?xw==?=elik) Date: Wed Jan 3 17:42:22 2007 Subject: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"] In-Reply-To: <007901c72f9c$c3b437c0$0201a8c0@andrieuhome> Message-ID: On 1/3/07 5:07 PM, "Joe Andrieu" wrote: > Tantek ? elik wrote: >> Finally, note that this is yet another meta-discussion email >> that you have sent, and thus as promised, absent any >> objections from anyone else on the list (or IRC), you will >> shortly be banned from the mailing-list for a week. > > Tantek, > > For the record, I do object. Joe, thanks very much for your input. You are the only person (in email or IRC) who has objected to banning Andy. However, even as a lone voice (perhaps especially), I respect your objection. Thus I have moderated him instead of banning him. Andy Mabbett is now moderated (not banned) on microformats lists.? This means that his posts MUST be approved by one of the list admins before going to the list.? If he successfully sends only topical / positive / improving email to the lists for one week (i.e. no emails that moderators have to bounce or drop) then moderation may be lifted. > I understand that you are doing what you > feel is the best interest of microformats. However, the mailing list is > the only commons that speaks to the entire microformats community. The mailing list is only one commons that speaks to the entire microformats community. E.g. anyone can write a blog post on their own blog and tag it with "microformats". Folks that are steadfastly following microformats are also checking all blog posts tagged with microformats: http://technorati.com/tag/microformats > It > seems to me that if someone has an issue with governance, the commons is > the right place to make a case, especially as there is no other vehicle > for doing so. The issues are about one individual's disruptive/noisy/distracting behavior in particular unfortunately, which he is then attempting to defend by hiding behind governance pedantics. > Governance so far has been autocratic and sometimes heavy handed. Your > categorization of these topics as "meta-discussion" only reinforces the > feeling that microformats is run by a cabal that refuses to address and > incorporate feedback from its constituents. Though I think "refuses" is a bit strong - I accept your feedback and will seek to improve this. Note that the overall challenge here is one of balance, and priorities. When only one disruptive individual has problems with governance, rather than the community as a whole, then it tends to lead one to believe that the problem may be more with the individual than with the community or the governance. > We have no formal > mechanisms for approving or changing microformats, nor do we have any > formal mechanisms for engaging on governance issues. These are serious > shortcomings. I'm not sure I agree that these are shortcomings. If the alternative is bureaucracy which slows everything down, and spending time on developing bureaucracy rather than developing microformats, then I reject this as a shortcoming. We as a community may be judged for that, but it is my hope that our positive achievements overall will greatly outweigh nitpicks of governance. That being said, I still believe it is important to track *any* outstanding issue - even meta-issues like governance, so that we as community don't forget them, and have the opportunity/reminder resolve them, even if it takes a while. I encourage you to add such issues that you see to the general issues page: http://microformats.org/wiki/issues > Again, I encourage you to read the Clay Shirky > article[1]. It's a good article. I've read it before and at your recommendation just re-read it. Thanks for the link and reminder. > Andy, having said that, you do sometimes rub people the wrong way and it > can make it hard to keep a positive disposition when discussing things > with you. There have been numerous private emails sent to the list admins as well complaining about Andy's behavior. This was not an action taken lightly, nor without community input. > I'm also frustrated by the lack of engagement on governance > issues and the wily-nilly approval/change process, but there's been good > work done by this community and there's reason to hope that these issues > will eventually be addressed. Joe, I very much appreciate your statement of hope, and in return hope that I and others in the community don't let you down. > [1] http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html Thanks again, Tantek From ckstjohn at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 19:11:23 2007 From: ckstjohn at gmail.com (Christopher St John) Date: Wed Jan 3 19:11:27 2007 Subject: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"] In-Reply-To: References: <007901c72f9c$c3b437c0$0201a8c0@andrieuhome> Message-ID: <8ba906450701031911ge62c6f8h6649b7553378d5c2@mail.gmail.com> On 1/3/07, Tantek ?elik wrote: > On 1/3/07 5:07 PM, "Joe Andrieu" wrote: > > > For the record, I do object. > > Joe, thanks very much for your input. You are the only person (in email or > IRC) who has objected to banning Andy. > I'm a little late, but for the record, I'd object to banning Andy as well. I've been on lists where disruptive people had to be banned, but in this case Andy is both well-intentioned and often (*cough* choking this one out, hard to form the words) has good points. And let's face it, compared to historical norms on, say, Usenet, Andy doesn't even rank. A small group of like-minded individuals with a common background who know each other personally is easy to organize. This was that, but it ain't no more. All for the good if it's recognized and adapted to, unfortunate otherwise. Enough of that, though. Peace. -cks -- Christopher St. John http://artofsystems.blogspot.com From tantek at cs.stanford.edu Wed Jan 3 19:26:02 2007 From: tantek at cs.stanford.edu (Tantek =?ISO-8859-1?B?xw==?=elik) Date: Wed Jan 3 19:25:58 2007 Subject: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"] In-Reply-To: <8ba906450701031911ge62c6f8h6649b7553378d5c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/3/07 7:11 PM, "Christopher St John" wrote: > On 1/3/07, Tantek ?elik wrote: >> On 1/3/07 5:07 PM, "Joe Andrieu" wrote: >> >>> For the record, I do object. >> >> Joe, thanks very much for your input. You are the only person (in email or >> IRC) who has objected to banning Andy. >> > > I'm a little late, but for the record, I'd object to banning Andy as well. Thanks for your input as well Chris. > I've been on lists where disruptive people had to be banned, but in > this case Andy is both well-intentioned and often (*cough* choking > this one out, hard to form the words) has good points. > > And let's face it, compared to historical norms on, say, Usenet, Andy > doesn't even rank. > > A small group of like-minded individuals with a common background > who know each other personally is easy to organize. This was that, > but it ain't no more. All for the good if it's recognized and adapted to, > unfortunate otherwise. Enough of that, though. You make good points. The big difference here (in contrast to Usenet, other lists etc.) is that this community has retained a remarkably positive and inviting tone of discussion for quite a long time, much much more so than those other forums, and those involved with this community very much value that and have chosen to protect that over accommodating individuals whose method/manner of communication is harsher, noisier etc., in spite of well-intentions, good points, and heck, even positive contributions. I wrote a bit more about how the microformats community is different in this way in a post last month: In addition, I recommend that everyone read this article by Kathy Sierra which I believe to be quite relevant to the topic/discussion at hand: > Peace. Agreed. Thanks Chris, Tantek From zen at zenpsycho.com Wed Jan 3 21:23:04 2007 From: zen at zenpsycho.com (Breton Slivka) Date: Wed Jan 3 21:23:08 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] Extending hCard and hCalendar vs. strict adherence to vcard and vCalendar. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 29, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > In message , > Breton > Slivka writes > >> There's a few rather obvious problems with this idea that I can see. >> However, before I point them out, I will note that if the benefits of >> such a plan outweigh the problems, then go for it. However I suggest >> very carefully thinking about this before going nuts with extensions. > > Who is advocating "going nuts"? It's a rhetorical device. The intent is to warn against unrestricted extensions to the standard with no problem cases to back up such solutions. Nobody was advocating such a thing, but it is one possible consequence of what you suggested. > >> #1. More work for implementors. While this rarely is seen as an >> issue >> for people on this list, (Tantek promotes that it's far more >> important >> to make it easier for publishers), one has to consider that if you >> specify some extension such as date of death, how likely is it to be >> implemented by anyone other than yourself? >> >> #2. In such an implementation, what specific benefit would having a >> specific field offer over just adding a note? Are there specific use >> cases when sorting contact information by date of death, for example, >> is important? > > You're criticising a wide concept by considering one suggested > example. No, I'm using the example you suggested as an example, of the sort design as problem solving thought process one should be using while considering extensions to a format. Namely, asking the questions "what problem is this solving? Does it actually need to be solved?, How badly does it need to be solved? What are the consequences of solving it in this way? Are there alternative ways of solving it?" etc... > > Nonetheless, there are sufficient "dates of death" on the web to > suggest > that marking them up, semantically, would be useful, and incorporating > them in hCards, ditto. > useful for what? What problem would such a thing solve? I've never needed to find a person via their date of death, but then, I'm not a mortician or a police investigator, so it may very well be an actual problem for 80%, but this needs to be considered before creating an extension specifically for it, and adding complexity to an already somewhat difficult format. I am picking on your date of death example, but similar questions would need to be asked for every extension. > This is especially relevant when incorporating hCards into other uFs, > such as those for citations and reviews > why? >> #3. Unreliable round tripping: This would be a fairly minor >> annoyance, >> but an annoyance nonetheless. > > What do you mean by "Unreliable round tripping"? > Client X supports features A, B, C. Client Y supports features A, C, D. How would you deal with exchanging data between these two programs, and maintaining self consistent database structures? Admittedly this is an issue for developers, but it becomes a problem for users when the author of client X and client Y don't agree on how to solve it. >> #4. Divergent standards: Are there any other extensions to icalendar >> or vcard being done by other groups and/or vendors? Is there >> likely to >> be in the future? > > No, ad no. See previous discussion. > > [...] Do you mind linking to any specific posts? > >> The hCard and iCalendar standard allow for vendor specific >> extensions, >> anyway, if you really really need feature X for a specific problem. >> With a clever enough client, and publishing implementation, this can >> probably be done with hCard and hCalendar as is, while maintaining >> backward compatibility. > > How? Feel free to use DoD as an example. > > -- > Andy Mabbett
Abraham Lincoln
United States
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington , DC April 15, 1865
Then, someone can correct me if this is incorrect, when a client written to deal with DoD encounters class="dod", it can import it with an "x-" prefix (for vendor specific properties, as allowed by vcard, I think) rather than try and do fancy things with notes. (see note above about client author disagreements). -Breton From timber at lava.net Wed Jan 3 21:58:57 2007 From: timber at lava.net (Colin Barrett) Date: Wed Jan 3 21:59:00 2007 Subject: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"] In-Reply-To: <8ba906450701031911ge62c6f8h6649b7553378d5c2@mail.gmail.com> References: <007901c72f9c$c3b437c0$0201a8c0@andrieuhome> <8ba906450701031911ge62c6f8h6649b7553378d5c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 3, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Christopher St John wrote: > On 1/3/07, Tantek ?elik wrote: >> On 1/3/07 5:07 PM, "Joe Andrieu" wrote: >> >> > For the record, I do object. >> >> Joe, thanks very much for your input. You are the only person (in >> email or >> IRC) who has objected to banning Andy. >> > > I'm a little late, but for the record, I'd object to banning Andy as > well. > > I've been on lists where disruptive people had to be banned, but in > this case Andy is both well-intentioned and often (*cough* choking > this one out, hard to form the words) has good points. This is definitely true. He has offered useful commentary, and I appreciate that. However, I definitely would like to interject that I think something does need to be done, and I applaud Tantek for taking action -- the situation was becoming increasingly annoying and. As someone who has, in another community, had to take moderative action against a well-intentioned, visible member, I understand how delicate something like this can be, and I approve of Tantek's decision to moderate Andy, rather than ban him. I would also like to thank him for bringing this issue into the limelight so we can discuss it, and hopefully, help Andy to become a better member of the community. -Colin From bewest at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 22:26:55 2007 From: bewest at gmail.com (Benjamin West) Date: Wed Jan 3 22:26:58 2007 Subject: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"] In-Reply-To: <8ba906450701031911ge62c6f8h6649b7553378d5c2@mail.gmail.com> References: <007901c72f9c$c3b437c0$0201a8c0@andrieuhome> <8ba906450701031911ge62c6f8h6649b7553378d5c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ad71be30701032226y6967ba0doa19509a0c4f148f9@mail.gmail.com> > A small group of like-minded individuals with a common background > who know each other personally is easy to organize. This was that, > but it ain't no more. I'm not sure how much this applies... the group of administrators is a world wide group of volunteers. Although this hasn't always been true, even the very earliest of adopters and active community members have origins all around the world, and no personal connections. Ben From zen at zenpsycho.com Wed Jan 3 23:25:16 2007 From: zen at zenpsycho.com (Breton Slivka) Date: Wed Jan 3 23:25:21 2007 Subject: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previously non-referenced in the spec"References"] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:26 PM, Tantek ?elik wrote: > The big difference here (in contrast to Usenet, other lists etc.) > is that > this community has retained a remarkably positive and inviting tone of > discussion for quite a long time, much much more so than those > other forums, > and those involved with this community very much value that and > have chosen > to protect that over accommodating individuals whose method/manner of > communication is harsher, noisier etc., in spite of well- > intentions, good > points, and heck, even positive contributions. As I read what's been going on in the list, the issue with Andy hasn't been so much his tone. This being text only medium, tone is very difficult to read into text, and most of the perceived tone of a post comes from personal interpretation. I think the reason Andy is now rubbing people the wrong way is a matter of the lack of substance in his posts. Strip away the emotional appeals, and there's virtually nothing left! If an argument can't be reduced to standard form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_form), then there is little point to the post, and it becomes like talking to a brick wall. My suggestion then is that in a list which is primarily an impersonal and intellectual discussion on problem solving in a specific domain, the judgement call about whether someone is being disruptive should be based on whether there's actual (not emotional or personal) content in the post. Can the argument be restated in standard form? Considering the nature of this list, posts consisting primarily of emotional appeals and personal attacks just don't fit, and can easily escalate, unless cooler heads prevail. In this case, I think Tantek made the right call under these criteria, whether it was done knowingly or intuitively. From mail at ciaranmcnulty.com Thu Jan 4 02:11:00 2007 From: mail at ciaranmcnulty.com (Ciaran McNulty) Date: Thu Jan 4 02:11:03 2007 Subject: [uf-discuss] rel="tag" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/3/07, Nick Peters wrote: > Seeing the tag implementation on Operator has made me question the > existing tagging standard. With wordpress you may get something like > "?cat=13" for a tag or something that may not even be the intended tag > at all. Agreed, the default behaviour is very clear and easy to understand, but I'd quite like to see some sort of escaping mechanism for overriding the tag value. Maybe Foo? It could bear looking at but I'd want to check through the mailing list archives to see what has previously been discussed. > I still don't > see why the standard extracts the tag from the last part of the URL > instead of the information inside the anchor tag. When I see a tag > and click on it, I expect the visible content, not what's appended to > the end of a URL. Anyone care to shed some light on this for me? The main reason that I can see is to allow normalisation of tags across different pages. One might have Soccer and the other Football, for instance. -Ciaran McNulty From joe at andrieu.net Thu Jan 4 02:33:35 2007 From: joe at andrieu.net (Joe Andrieu) Date: Thu Jan 4 02:33:31 2007 Subject: Banning for meta-discusion [was RE: [uf-discuss] previouslynon-referenced in the spec"References"] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00b101c72feb$cb397970$0201a8c0@andrieuhome> Tantek ? elik wrote: > On 1/3/07 5:07 PM, "Joe Andrieu" wrote: > > > Tantek ? elik wrote: > > For the record, I do object. > > Joe, thanks very much for your input. You are the only > person (in email or > IRC) who has objected to banning Andy. > > However, even as a lone voice (perhaps especially), I respect > your objection. Tantek, I appreciate that, and the considered response. As others have said, it is a delicate situation and I do believe that you and the others involved in moderating our group have the best interests of the project at heart. > Thus I have moderated him instead of banning him. >From a functional standpoint, there really isn't much difference. The ban was stensibly for discussing governance issues. From various party's comments, including your own, I think it is clear the ban was more for reasons of etiquette, decorum, and public disturbance. Frankly, I find those latter reasons much firmer grounds for banning or moderating someone. Shutting down a sincere desire to address governance issues instead comes across as autocrative and unresponsive to community input. Banning someone who riles everyone up is just being a good bouncer. > > I understand that you are doing what you > > feel is the best interest of microformats. However, the > mailing list > > is the only commons that speaks to the entire microformats > community. > > The mailing list is only one commons that speaks to the > entire microformats community. E.g. anyone can write a blog > post on their own blog and tag it with "microformats". Folks > that are steadfastly following microformats are also checking > all blog posts tagged with microformats: > > http://technorati.com/tag/microformats This is interesting, and if blogs are a primary vehicle for the uF commons, it should be highlighted as such (and this is the first I've heard of that option). I for one, do not post uF related content on my blog. I post it here. Because that's where most people involved with read it. The folks who read my blog read it for other reasons. I know IRC is also a commons of a sort, one that seems to be effective for those who use it. However, I think it is a true statement that the largest % of uF users/contributors use this list as their primary touchpoint. As such, it would seem to be the primary commons. > > It > > seems to me that if someone has an issue with governance, > the commons > > is the right place to make a case, especially as there is no other > > vehicle for doing so. > > The issues are about one individual's > disruptive/noisy/distracting behavior in particular > unfortunately, which he is then attempting to defend by > hiding behind governance pedantics. Countering disruptive behavior is governance. Andy felt like you were slapping him down and I think he reacted in part to say "What gives /you/ the right?" That's a reasonable question of governance: What rules are in place that explain why the behavior is unacceptable? And how is it to be judged that such rules are violated. My own frustrations mostly stem from the fact that, IMNSHO, far too many decisions are made by a small number of people without any legitimate process in place for building or judging consensus. The addition of "place" for hCard is a great example. That was a significant change in semantics and there was not a consenus about it. Rather, those who have the functional capability simply updated the wiki. Brian responded to this earlier saying he felt it was appropriate because it reflects common usage. But that really isn't what a standard is. The problem before the metric system was that every jurisdiction's common usage for various measures was different. No interoperability. Same thing with timezones before standardization. In fact, microformats and the semantic web are ALL about creating interoperability. For example, the restrictions on the namespace are all geared to /forge/ a consensus standard taxonomy. If that "standard" can change at the drop of a few emails, it really isn't much of a standard. >From a different direction, if we had good version control, with explicit approvals, it would be extremely easy for me to support quick revs and updates based on usage. As long as I can know that the hcard in question is v2007.a or later, I can be assured of certain semantics. As it is, I can't even tell if it /is/ an hcard (rather than a local class name that looks like an hcard) But we have neither quality versioning nor explicity processes for approving and designating "official" microformats. Everything is essentially at the whim of our fearless leaders. > > Governance so far has been autocratic and sometimes heavy > handed. Your > > categorization of these topics as "meta-discussion" only reinforces > > the feeling that microformats is run by a cabal that refuses to > > address and incorporate feedback from its constituents. > > Though I think "refuses" is a bit strong - I accept your > feedback and will seek to improve this. To clarify, "reinforces the feeling" was meant to soften that a bit. There is a feeling that things are a bit autocratic, that if a few people agree it?s a good thing, then nobody else's opinion really matters. > Note that the overall challenge here is one of balance, and > priorities. I agree. And I give you credit for your efforts on this. > When only one disruptive individual has problems with > governance, rather than the community as a whole, then it > tends to lead one to believe that the problem may be more > with the individual than with the community or the governance. More than just Andy has expressed frustration. I think he's just been the most vocal and annoying. ("Annoying" here is based on observed responses.) > > We have no formal > > mechanisms for approving or changing microformats, nor do > we have any > > formal mechanisms for engaging on governance issues. These are > > serious shortcomings. > > I'm not sure I agree that these are shortcomings. If the > alternative is bureaucracy which slows everything down, and > spending time on developing bureaucracy rather than > developing microformats, then I reject this as a shortcoming. > We as a community may be judged for that, but it is my hope > that our positive achievements overall will greatly outweigh > nitpicks of governance. Tantek, there is no governance for uF other than by cabal, which historically has proven useful only in a limited scale. The alternative, of determining a means of governance, need not create a heavy bureaucracy, in fact, it can be liberating. Frankly, a more decentralized approach would do uF good. And that would require a small set of explicit procedural standards and a huge release of authority. The obvious and/or na?ve bureacratic options could easily create a mess of burdensome procedures, but there's no reason we would have to be na?ve or choose the obvious. > That being said, I still believe it is important to track > *any* outstanding issue - even meta-issues like governance, > so that we as community don't forget them, and have the > opportunity/reminder resolve them, even if it takes a while. > I encourage you to add such issues that you see to the > general issues page: > > http://microformats.org/wiki/issues I'll do that. > > Again, I encourage you to read the Clay Shirky > > article[1]. > > It's a good article. I've read it before and at your > recommendation just re-read it. Thanks for the link and reminder. Excellent. I'm not always the most eloquent and I thought Clay did a great job. > > I'm also frustrated by the lack of engagement on