[admin] [EoT request] was Re: [uf-new] Use of img in rel-*
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Sun Jul 15 17:48:59 PDT 2007
On 7/15/07 3:58 PM, "Joe Andrieu" <joe at andrieu.net> wrote:
> Tantek Ç elik wrote (Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:05 PM)
>> This thread is quickly repeating itself, dominating the email
>> discussions on the list, and thus becoming more noise than
>> signal for most.
>> Thus I'm going to ask folks who have an agenda of pushing
>> change here to please STOP repeating themselves (especially
>> when those asking for change are ignoring criticisms brought
>> forth by the community).
>> In addition this is a general admin request for those
>> mentioned (Manu and Andy in particular) to STOP posting on
>> this thread in the list for at least 7 days (to reduce list
>> noise) or until they've documented concrete proposals
>> *and* the criticisms brought up in the email thread using the wiki.
> It is pretty unsporting of you to cut off all discussion after you post your
> own points to the list.
Apologies as I do realize it came across like that.
I realized shortly after posting my own recent emails that I wasn't helping
the problem either and thus put on my admin hat and posted my request
regarding the thread which I as well will stick to until those advocating
changes do the requested work on the wiki.
> I agree the conversation is going in circles... And probably could use some
> time off. However, requesting as admin that those who
> disagree with you should quiet down--after you make your own points--comes
> across as a heavy-handed way to get the last word in.
The admin request applies to thread as a whole, but especially to those who
have posted most often in the thread as the high-frequency of posting (and
thus apparent noise on the list) is due to a few, not everyone.
> I would also like to see some of the back-and-forth move to concrete proposals
> on the wiki.
> Including your own points, Tantek.
I'm wiking everything I can, in priority order per my to-do list on the
I encourage you to add a section for yourself on the to-do page as well for
the things you want to get done in the microformats community.
> most popular uFs, such as hCard and hCalendar never went through the uF
> process with the same documentation and rigor that new
> proposals face.
They did go through various checks and balances similar to those in the
process (in fact, much of the process was written as a result of documenting
the methodology developed *while* developing hCard and hCalendar).
Your request for more specific history is reasonable, and will certainly
benefit both out existing microformats, and those looking to understand the
development of microformats in general. I've added it to my personal to-do
> You yourself have acknowledged the lack of documentation
> before. As a result, I'd say the burden of proof exists, as
> usual, for everyone making a case.
It is not the same for everyone no. There is what is established and thus
works today, and there are proposals for change. The proposals for change
have burden of proof. The documentation at this point for those that
actually worked on it is a matter of historical documentation, not process.
> And in my opinion, it is even greater for
> those defending the status quo, if simply because the
> incumbant have the benefit of possession of the standard.
We will simply have to choose to disagree on this point then.
The burden of proof is always on those who wish to change or modify what
already "works" to a great extent today. This principle is actually in use
all over microformats, such as re-using existing implied schemas and looking
at existing widely interoperable standards as a basis for vocabulary for
Thus it could be said that a key principle of microformats in general "doing
what already works" (i.e. re-use) is greatly valued over "changing
everything and starting from scratch" (i.e. re-invention).
More information about the microformats-new