[uf-discuss] Regarding POSH and misuse of the microformats logo

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <B5F16B48-E4B2-4C4B-800E-BA1EBBAD6950 at ben-ward.co.uk>, Ben
Ward <lists at ben-ward.co.uk> writes

>I've obviously been following the recent push to have POSH adopted as
>a buzzword to discourage people from mis-using the term ‘microformat’
>in their semantic endeavours.
>
>Now the whole point of this is to differentiate semantic HTML from
>microformats, discourage the further ambiguation of the terms.

Is it? I've never seen that said before.

If it is intended to be separate form microformats, then having so much
about it on the microformat 'wiki' is somewhat misleading.

>POSH is explicitly  supposed to be a super-set of microformats, a
>generic term invented  to help protect the microformats name from being
>generalised.

I think it's quite clear from the cited history that that's not why the
term was coined; it certainly not why I added it to the glossary.

>POSH is not a microformat.

Agreed, but microformats *are* POSH.

>The documented presence on our wiki is  acceptable as ‘microformat’
>mis-use is a common problem for us,

The later claim does not justify the former assertion.

>but I  object to it being presented as part of ‘microformats’ through
>association with the logo. It's just going to cause more confusion.

I also agree with your later point; but I think the same applies to
having POSH as part of the microformat 'wiki'.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
            *  Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  <http://www.no2id.net/>
            *  Free Our Data:  <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
            *  Are you using Microformats, yet: <http://microformats.org/> ?