[uf-discuss] Microformat tools bogosity test

[Scott Reynen]

On Mar 7, 2007, at 3:51 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:

>> We seem to be at the "iterate" stage now with the ambiguity problem,
>
> There I disagree - as far as the theory goes, for microformats the
> problem is effectively solved.

I'd say the problem isn't solved until the solution is actually  
adopted, and one way to increase interest in adoption is to more  
clearly demonstrate the problem we're solving.

> The notion of profile URIs has gone through the community process, and
> there's even a microformat to support them: XMDP. It's been accepted
> that each microformat should have a profile URI [1].

If it's gone through the process, where are the examples?  It would  
be a lot harder for people to claim it's not really a problem if they  
could see some examples of the problem.  I assume that's what you  
were trying to do with your soup dragon, but such contrived examples  
are not very compelling.

> Just to reiterate the rationale for profile URIs : if publishers
> include one, they have made a clear assertion according to the
> conventions of web architecture and the relevant specs that they're
> using that microformat.

I think I understand the rationale for profile URIs.  What I don't  
see are examples demonstrating that rationale.  I similarly  
understand the rationale for valid HTML, but I don't expect many to  
actually care about that until it becomes a problem they can easily see.

> But it's ludicrous that the
> webarch-friendly option isn't currently available.

And it's ludicrous that people still publish tag soup HTML too.  So  
how can we change this situation?  I think we've established after  
several rounds on this topic that saying "we need profiles" doesn't  
change much.  In the interest of progress, let's try something  
different this time.  Document some examples, write some more XMDPs,  
anything other than repeating the same discussion we've had several  
times already.  Because that clearly does not work.

Peace,
Scott