[uf-discuss] microformats for normal people, like my mum

Frances Berriman fberriman at gmail.com
Thu Jun 28 02:39:53 PDT 2007

On 28/06/07, Pelle W <mejllistor at kodfabrik.se> wrote:
> On 6/27/07, Tara Hunt <tara at citizenagency.com> wrote:
> >> Although I heart the idea of language for non-experts, I'm wondering
> >> how public facing Microformats, as a general term, is.
> >>
> >> I've thought about this before...I can see the specific microformats,
> >> like hCard and hCal and hReview being public facing...and, in reality,
> >> these are pretty descriptive. Maybe they just need some sort of iconic
> >> marker (like RSS has)...which I think has been attempted before.
> I agree with Tara here. Microformats is interesting for developers
> because it tells us in what way the solution works but for my mum it
> would tell nothing. My mom knows however what an address is and what a
> calendar is and because of that it's the microformats in itself that
> should be given common names like "web feeds" for RSS. I don't know but
> have XML been given a humane name yet? Because XML is to RSS what
> Microformats is to hCard.

I concur on this line of thinking.  Microformats are the technological
name - my mum should never have to come across the term any more than
she should have to come across the term XML.  I think Operator does a
good job of hiding the term in that it simply shows what you can
actually do with data in the page (add this to my google calendar
etc.).  Therefore, uFs don't need a user-facing name - their
applications do.

> If Microformats should be given a more humane name then that would be
> something about semantics. Semanticdata perhaps - but it wouldn't make
> anyone happier I think because the only ones who would be interested
> would be those who already knows what Microformats is.
> >> As far as talking about Microformats under one banner, I don't know if
> >> the distinction really needs to be made. i think that may be what POSH
> >> was trying to say: use plain old semantic html...but even that is
> >> talking to developers and advanced content producers.

I've said it before, but I don't think there's any need to reiterate
what semantic HTML for is via *another* name, for developers. POSH is
bad enough.

Frances Berriman

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list