[uf-discuss] RE: Microformats and RDFa not as far apart as previously thought

Breton Slivka zen at zenpsycho.com
Sun Jun 29 21:13:51 PDT 2008

I think this sort of counter argument is a straw man. The proposal
from Guillaume was not to write a natural language parser that can
parse any kind of human written date. The proposal was to parse a very
specific and standardized format of date. If one were to write
"Oktober", the specified behavior for parsers should be to fail, and
possibly throw errors.

I for one, strongly agree with this approach. Essentially the problem
with the ABBR problem that the microformat community faces, is a set
of three restrictions, all applied, results in a set of 0 solutions.
Every solution I've seen so far only satisfies two of those
restrictions, and is immediately shot down by someone in the community
who thinks the third restriction is invoilatable.

the restrictions:

1. No information hiding
2. Humans first, machines second.
3. It must be in a format that's easily machine parsable.

You see the problem here? You guys are going to have to comprimise on
one of these three damned restrictions, or face irrelevance!

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Fil <fil at rezo.net> wrote:
> I'm not a great fan of natural language here. What if I want to write
> 3l33t (well, not at my age mind you), or punk, maybe use Oktober
> instead of October cause I'm a (admittedly bad) poet?  The human will
> understand, the computer won't.
> -- Fil
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list