[uf-new] Recipe

[Scott Reynen]

On Sep 28, 2007, at 4:56 AM, Ben Ward wrote:

> I think it's a reality of the way in which development currently  
> moves in this community; that development and interest comes in  
> waves. It means to me that forcing dependencies on undeveloped  
> compound microformats, which currently have little interest and  
> backing, will in effect kill development of this format which  
> people are interested in.

I agree.

On Sep 28, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

> Then we run the risk of allowing the "higher level" microformats to  
> de-facto define the "lower -level", (As hAudio is doing with  
> currency); effectively outside the "process".

The process should defer to real world publishing, so I'm not sure  
this is a bad thing.  But if it is a problem, leaving out the  
unfinished low-level microformat until it's complete strikes me as a  
better solution than halting the high-level microformat until the low- 
level is complete.  We can't force people to be interested in  
something, and we should avoid stifling or hijacking interest where  
it exists.

>> A Recipe format can be useful and improve publishing without  
>> explicit mark-up for measurements and citations.
>
> Useful to a degree, but less so than with semantic markup for those  
> items.

Right, but we can always add the more specific semantics later, after  
they've received more attention and polish.  Let's start simple.

>> We should not delay  development of a format that shows so much  
>> existing publishing and  interest from publishers because of  
>> missing compound microformats  which are not attracting the same  
>> levels of interest.
>
> Then we're in danger of letting populism override good practise.

"Override" seems to imply we're talking about encouraging bad  
practice; we're not.  We're just talking about starting with less  
specific semantics (good), possibly adding specificity (better)  
later.  Let's not make better an enemy of good.

>> Or we could just encourage more participation in developing those  
>> microformats.

We could certainly encourage that, but we shouldn't make existing  
interest dependent on hypothetical future interest resulting from  
such encouragement.  People interested in recipes should pursue that  
interest without being forced (as if we could force them) to look at  
something they may not care about.

> Why do you think there is little apparent interest, given that such  
> data types vastly out number recipes, audio downloads, listings or  
> whatever? Are people doing the "fun" stuff and neglecting the  
> "housework"?

I think these are interesting questions, but I'd encourage a separate  
thread about them so people interested only in recipes can pursue  
that interest without unnecessary (however useful) tangents.

--
Scott Reynen
MakeDataMakeSense.com