[uf-discuss] Major change to microformat specs without
prior discussion or notification
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Thu Feb 7 11:59:31 PST 2008
In message <47AB4911.5020809 at digitalbazaar.com>, Manu Sporny
<msporny at digitalbazaar.com> writes
>Thom Shannon wrote:
>> perhaps there was prior discussion and agreement that was just a long
>> time ago? Have you searched the archives or asked Tantek directly?
>Here's the IRC log regarding the change to the wiki:
I don't consider that to be adequate period of discussion; and I don't
consider that forum alone to be an adequate forum for discussion of such
a major issue.
What would happen if I implemented one of my outstanding - and nowhere
near as harmful - proposals in that way?
Why has it not been reverted yet? If I had any faith that this was truly
an open community, I would do so myself.
>I agree with the change
I agree with the general principle behind the change. I don't agree with
the method of implementation, or with changing the spec in a way which
has such wide- reaching implications, and backwards-compatibility
issues, with out doing adequate research, and giving ample warning,
first. I don't agree with making the change wholesale rather than
examining the implications in each type of use, And I don't agree with
changing the way several microformats work, by amending the
parsing-rules page for one of them.
>- I don't agree with not running it past the
It's not just about new microformats, but also existing microformats; it
should be discussed here, too.
>It seems like a fairly far-reaching
>change/update. It invalidates the need for "mfo" in hcard, doesn't it?
>If it were applied to the rest of Microformats, it would invalidate the
>need for "mfo" entirely.
It also break some previously-valid implementations.
>There are logs - so it would be wrong to say the decision was made in
>private, it was done on IRC, without notification to microformats-new.
Who said it was made in private?
More information about the microformats-discuss