[uf-discuss] Rebuttal to this article that criticizes Microformats: Thinking XML: Microformats the XML way

[Costello, Roger L.]

Hi Folks,
 
On the IBM web site is an article that harshly criticizes Microformats:
 
 
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think39.html?ca=dnw
-820 
 
I carefully read the article.  I tried to objectively extract the
assumptions that the author is making.  I identified these three
assumptions:
 
Assumption #1

Microformats are a disruptive technology; Microformats dictate how to
structure documents.

Assumption #2

Microformats are attempting to supplant XML documents with HTML and
XHTML documents.

Assumption #3

The main benefit of Microformats is that it allows graceful
degradation.

--------------------------------------------
Here's how I identified each assumption:

Assumption #1

Microformats are a disruptive technology; Microformats dictate how to
structure document.

In the article Listing 1 gives an example of a web document using the
XOXO Microformat.  The author finds it unappealing ("ghastly", he
says), and in Listing 2 provides a simpler version.

My analysis: Listing 2 does not implement the same thing as Listing 1,
so it is not fair to make comparisons.  Listing 1 is much more
structured.  In any case, the XOXO does not mandate the Listing 1
structure be used.

Assumption #2

Microformats are an attempt to supplant XML documents with HTML and
XHTML documents.

In the article's introduction the author states: "Microformats should
be one tool available for expression of rich content on the Web and
should complement, rather than **supplant**, other such technologies
like XML on the Web, and even Ajax."  [I added the ** to emphasize the
point]

Assumption #3

The main benefit of Microformats is that it allows graceful
degradation.

In the section titled Nuance and Nuisance the author states:
"Microformats folks do this because they feel that XML is too complex,
not yet ubiquitous enough and, more importantly, doesn't allow for
graceful degradation, which means that microformats look like regular
HTML to user agents that do not understand more advanced technologies
such as XML."

--------------------------------------------
I feel the author's assumptions are inaccurate; regrettably, giving
readers inaccurate information. Here is my attempt to correct the
inaccuracies: 

Assumption #1

Microformats are a disruptive technology; Microformats dictate how to
structure document.

Analysis: in fact, Microformats are a non-disruptive technology;
Microformats are overlaid "behind-the-scenes" on existing structures.

Assumption #2

Microformats are an attempt to supplant XML documents with HTML and
XHTML documents.

Analysis: in fact, an XHTML document is an XML document.  Thus,
Microformats are already being used with XML.  Personally, in my own
work, I am injecting Microformats into arbitrary XML documents.

Assumption #3

The main benefit of Microformats is that it allows graceful
degradation.

Analysis: in fact, the main benefit of Microformats is that it makes
local knowledge globally useful[1].

--------------------------------------------
Have I accurately identified the article's assumptions?  Do you concur
with my analysis of each assumption?  Is there anything else that you
would add to an analysis of the article?

/Roger

[1]
http://www.xfront-wiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Making_Local_Knowlege_G
lobally_Useful