why-examples - Revision history

Aaronpk: Replace with {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}

2020-07-18T16:35:02Z

Replace <entry-title> with {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 18 July 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~<entry-title>~~ Why examples first ~~</entry-title>~~		{{DISPLAYTITLE: Why examples first }}

	Author/Editor: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]		Author/Editor: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]

Tantek: explicitly note what about hCard and hCalendar

2009-11-10T03:15:26Z

explicitly note what about hCard and hCalendar

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:15, 10 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<h1> Why examples first </h1>		<entry-title> Why examples first </entry-title>

	Author/Editor: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]		Author/Editor: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]
Line 10:		Line 10:

	This particular contrast between traditional standards development and microformats can also be summarized as the philosophical difference between ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori]'' knowledge. That is, traditional standards take more of an ''a priori'' approach, independent of real-world experience (data), while microformats take an ''a posteriori'' approach that is dependent on real-world experience, where "experience" in this sentence refers to actual "experiences" that occur in the real-world, in particular the Web, and are documented as such, not someone being "experienced" or an expert in their field etc.		This particular contrast between traditional standards development and microformats can also be summarized as the philosophical difference between ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori]'' knowledge. That is, traditional standards take more of an ''a priori'' approach, independent of real-world experience (data), while microformats take an ''a posteriori'' approach that is dependent on real-world experience, where "experience" in this sentence refers to actual "experiences" that occur in the real-world, in particular the Web, and are documented as such, not someone being "experienced" or an expert in their field etc.

			== What about hCard and hCalendar ==
			But what about [[hCard]] and [[hCalendar]]? Both of those seem to have been created from existing ''formats'' rather than using research of real-world publishing examples and schemas implied therein. What happened there?

			In short, hCard and hCalendar were developed ''before'' the [[process]] was written-up and in fact helped inspire both the "research previous formats" step in the process, and the call to document real world examples - from a lesson learned perspective.

			See [[process-faq#Where_are_the_real-world_publishing_examples_and_analysis_of_properties_implied_in_hCard_and_hCalendar\|process FAQ: where are the real-world publishing examples and analysis thereof for hCard and hCalendar]] for more details.

	== More Reading ==		== More Reading ==

	References and see also:		References and see also:

Brian: Reverted edits by PasmoNc4ta (Talk) to last version by Tantek

2008-12-16T19:40:26Z

Reverted edits by PasmoNc4ta (Talk) to last version by Tantek

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:40, 16 December 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~licalaorno~~
	<h1> Why examples first </h1>		<h1> Why examples first </h1>

Line 18:		Line 17:
	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method The scientific method]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method The scientific method]
	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori (philosophy)]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori (philosophy)]
	* [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/I3basicquestions.shtml Science Asks Three Basic Questions] - in particular for this topic, "~~Whatâs~~ there?"		* [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/I3basicquestions.shtml Science Asks Three Basic Questions] - in particular for this topic, "What’s there?"

PasmoNc4ta: liroliricro

2008-12-16T17:59:49Z

liroliricro

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, 16 December 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			licalaorno
	<h1> Why examples first </h1>		<h1> Why examples first </h1>

Line 17:		Line 18:
	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method The scientific method]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method The scientific method]
	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori (philosophy)]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori (philosophy)]
	* [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/I3basicquestions.shtml Science Asks Three Basic Questions] - in particular for this topic, "~~What’s~~ there?"		* [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/I3basicquestions.shtml Science Asks Three Basic Questions] - in particular for this topic, "Whatâs there?"

Tantek: previous revert undid changes that added vagueness, and insult. updated to reference whatwg as another org now using examples.

2008-10-14T16:52:37Z

previous revert undid changes that added vagueness, and insult. updated to reference whatwg as another org now using examples.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 14 October 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= Why examples first =		<h1> Why examples first </h1>

	Author/Editor: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]		Author/Editor: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]

	The microformats [[process]] requirement to first document [[examples]] of real world publishing behavior is an adaptation of the "gather information" step in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method scientific method] to standards development. The microformats process is the first to explicitly adopt and require this methodology among standards efforts, and ~~to date is~~ the only effort to do so in the world of standards development as compared to other standards development organizations.		The microformats [[process]] requirement to first document [[examples]] of real world publishing behavior is an adaptation of the "gather information" step in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method scientific method] to standards development. The microformats process is the <em>first</em> to explicitly adopt and require this methodology among standards efforts, and for a while was the only effort to do so in the world of standards development as compared to other standards development organizations. The [[whatwg]] has also adopted a policy of requesting real world examples as a basis for additions, changes, etc., and cited the microformats process as inspiration for this method.

	Common behavior in typical standards development organizations is to simply invent standards / formats based upon intuition or so-called "expertise", and to either not bother collecting examples at all, or to do so only incidentally, or for brief illustration, always serving at best as secondary. Sometimes this intuition masquerades as formal "requirements" that are similarly invented rather than based upon actual publishing practice in the real world.		Common behavior in typical standards development organizations is to simply invent standards / formats based upon intuition or so-called "expertise", and to either not bother collecting examples at all, or to do so only incidentally, or for brief illustration, always serving at best as secondary. Sometimes this intuition masquerades as formal "requirements" that are similarly invented rather than based upon actual publishing practice in the real world.

Tantek: Reverted edit of Smoogle, changed back to last version by AndreiScheinkman

2008-10-14T16:41:07Z

Reverted edit of Smoogle, changed back to last version by AndreiScheinkman

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 14 October 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Author/Editor: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]		Author/Editor: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]

	The microformats [[process]] requirement to first document [[examples]] of real world publishing behavior is an adaptation of the "gather information" step in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method scientific method] to standards development. The microformats process is ~~among~~ the first to explicitly adopt and require this methodology among standards efforts, and to date is the only effort to do so in the world of standards development as compared to other standards development organizations.		The microformats [[process]] requirement to first document [[examples]] of real world publishing behavior is an adaptation of the "gather information" step in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method scientific method] to standards development. The microformats process is the first to explicitly adopt and require this methodology among standards efforts, and to date is the only effort to do so in the world of standards development as compared to other standards development organizations.
	~~The aim of this process is to create a data format that is "just the right size" i.e. captures the essence of the object being modeled without adding superfluous data~~.

	~~According to some microformat zealots common~~ behavior in typical standards development organizations is to simply invent standards / formats based upon intuition or so-called "expertise", and to either not bother collecting examples at all, or to do so only incidentally, or for brief illustration, always serving at best as secondary. Sometimes this intuition masquerades as formal "requirements" that are similarly invented rather than based upon actual publishing practice in the real world.		Common behavior in typical standards development organizations is to simply invent standards / formats based upon intuition or so-called "expertise", and to either not bother collecting examples at all, or to do so only incidentally, or for brief illustration, always serving at best as secondary. Sometimes this intuition masquerades as formal "requirements" that are similarly invented rather than based upon actual publishing practice in the real world.

	That non-scientific technique has been tried in ~~the creation of~~ many standards and ~~has~~ often ~~resulted~~ in bloated ~~and~~ overly complex (certainly not "micro") standards. There are exceptions, where an individual with exceptional discipline and near obsession with simplicity makes something small and elegant, but they are the exception, not the rule, and even in those cases you will often find features that no one ever ends up using.		That non-scientific technique has been tried in many (most) standards and results more often than not in bloated overly complex (certainly not "micro") standards. There are exceptions, where an individual with exceptional discipline and near obsession with simplicity makes something small and elegant, but they are the exception, not the rule, and even in those cases you will often find features that no one ever ends up using.

	This particular contrast between traditional standards development and microformats can also be summarized as the philosophical difference between ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori]'' knowledge. That is, traditional standards take more of an ''a priori'' approach, independent of real-world experience (data), while microformats take an ''a posteriori'' approach that is dependent on real-world experience, where "experience" in this sentence refers to actual "experiences" that occur in the real-world, in particular the Web, and are documented as such, not someone being "experienced" or an expert in their field etc.		This particular contrast between traditional standards development and microformats can also be summarized as the philosophical difference between ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori]'' knowledge. That is, traditional standards take more of an ''a priori'' approach, independent of real-world experience (data), while microformats take an ''a posteriori'' approach that is dependent on real-world experience, where "experience" in this sentence refers to actual "experiences" that occur in the real-world, in particular the Web, and are documented as such, not someone being "experienced" or an expert in their field etc.

Smoogle at 15:23, 14 October 2008

2008-10-14T15:23:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:23, 14 October 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:

	The microformats [[process]] requirement to first document [[examples]] of real world publishing behavior is an adaptation of the "gather information" step in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method scientific method] to standards development. The microformats process is among the first to explicitly adopt and require this methodology among standards efforts, and to date is the only effort to do so in the world of standards development as compared to other standards development organizations.		The microformats [[process]] requirement to first document [[examples]] of real world publishing behavior is an adaptation of the "gather information" step in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method scientific method] to standards development. The microformats process is among the first to explicitly adopt and require this methodology among standards efforts, and to date is the only effort to do so in the world of standards development as compared to other standards development organizations.
	The aim of this process is to create a data format that is "just the right size" i.e. captures the essence of the object ~~is trying to model~~ without adding superfluous data.		The aim of this process is to create a data format that is "just the right size" i.e. captures the essence of the object being modeled without adding superfluous data.

	According to some microformat zealots common behavior in typical standards development organizations is to simply invent standards / formats based upon intuition or so-called "expertise", and to either not bother collecting examples at all, or to do so only incidentally, or for brief illustration, always serving at best as secondary. Sometimes this intuition masquerades as formal "requirements" that are similarly invented rather than based upon actual publishing practice in the real world.		According to some microformat zealots common behavior in typical standards development organizations is to simply invent standards / formats based upon intuition or so-called "expertise", and to either not bother collecting examples at all, or to do so only incidentally, or for brief illustration, always serving at best as secondary. Sometimes this intuition masquerades as formal "requirements" that are similarly invented rather than based upon actual publishing practice in the real world.

Smoogle at 15:22, 14 October 2008

2008-10-14T15:22:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 14 October 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Author/Editor: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]		Author/Editor: [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]

	The microformats [[process]] requirement to first document [[examples]] of real world publishing behavior is an adaptation of the "gather information" step in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method scientific method] to standards development. The microformats process is the first to explicitly adopt and require this methodology among standards efforts, and to date is the only effort to do so in the world of standards development as compared to other standards development organizations.		The microformats [[process]] requirement to first document [[examples]] of real world publishing behavior is an adaptation of the "gather information" step in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method scientific method] to standards development. The microformats process is among the first to explicitly adopt and require this methodology among standards efforts, and to date is the only effort to do so in the world of standards development as compared to other standards development organizations.
			The aim of this process is to create a data format that is "just the right size" i.e. captures the essence of the object is trying to model without adding superfluous data.

	~~Common~~ behavior in typical standards development organizations is to simply invent standards / formats based upon intuition or so-called "expertise", and to either not bother collecting examples at all, or to do so only incidentally, or for brief illustration, always serving at best as secondary. Sometimes this intuition masquerades as formal "requirements" that are similarly invented rather than based upon actual publishing practice in the real world.		According to some microformat zealots common behavior in typical standards development organizations is to simply invent standards / formats based upon intuition or so-called "expertise", and to either not bother collecting examples at all, or to do so only incidentally, or for brief illustration, always serving at best as secondary. Sometimes this intuition masquerades as formal "requirements" that are similarly invented rather than based upon actual publishing practice in the real world.

	That non-scientific technique has been tried in many ~~(most)~~ standards and ~~results more~~ often ~~than not~~ in bloated overly complex (certainly not "micro") standards. There are exceptions, where an individual with exceptional discipline and near obsession with simplicity makes something small and elegant, but they are the exception, not the rule, and even in those cases you will often find features that no one ever ends up using.		That non-scientific technique has been tried in the creation of many standards and has often resulted in bloated and overly complex (certainly not "micro") standards. There are exceptions, where an individual with exceptional discipline and near obsession with simplicity makes something small and elegant, but they are the exception, not the rule, and even in those cases you will often find features that no one ever ends up using.

	This particular contrast between traditional standards development and microformats can also be summarized as the philosophical difference between ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori]'' knowledge. That is, traditional standards take more of an ''a priori'' approach, independent of real-world experience (data), while microformats take an ''a posteriori'' approach that is dependent on real-world experience, where "experience" in this sentence refers to actual "experiences" that occur in the real-world, in particular the Web, and are documented as such, not someone being "experienced" or an expert in their field etc.		This particular contrast between traditional standards development and microformats can also be summarized as the philosophical difference between ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori]'' knowledge. That is, traditional standards take more of an ''a priori'' approach, independent of real-world experience (data), while microformats take an ''a posteriori'' approach that is dependent on real-world experience, where "experience" in this sentence refers to actual "experiences" that occur in the real-world, in particular the Web, and are documented as such, not someone being "experienced" or an expert in their field etc.

AndreiScheinkman: /* Why examples first */ Fix spelling

2006-12-21T22:34:40Z

Why examples first: Fix spelling

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 21 December 2006
Line 9:		Line 9:
	That non-scientific technique has been tried in many (most) standards and results more often than not in bloated overly complex (certainly not "micro") standards. There are exceptions, where an individual with exceptional discipline and near obsession with simplicity makes something small and elegant, but they are the exception, not the rule, and even in those cases you will often find features that no one ever ends up using.		That non-scientific technique has been tried in many (most) standards and results more often than not in bloated overly complex (certainly not "micro") standards. There are exceptions, where an individual with exceptional discipline and near obsession with simplicity makes something small and elegant, but they are the exception, not the rule, and even in those cases you will often find features that no one ever ends up using.

	This particular contrast between traditional standards development and microformats can also be summarized as the ~~philosohpical~~ difference between ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori]'' knowledge. That is, traditional standards take more of an ''a priori'' approach, independent of real-world experience (data), while microformats take an ''a posteriori'' approach that is dependent on real-world experience, where "experience" in this sentence refers to actual "experiences" that occur in the real-world, in particular the Web, and are documented as such, not someone being "experienced" or an expert in their field etc.		This particular contrast between traditional standards development and microformats can also be summarized as the philosophical difference between ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori]'' knowledge. That is, traditional standards take more of an ''a priori'' approach, independent of real-world experience (data), while microformats take an ''a posteriori'' approach that is dependent on real-world experience, where "experience" in this sentence refers to actual "experiences" that occur in the real-world, in particular the Web, and are documented as such, not someone being "experienced" or an expert in their field etc.

	== More Reading ==		== More Reading ==

Tantek: added more reading

2006-12-21T18:08:08Z

added more reading

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:08, 21 December 2006
Line 10:		Line 10:

	This particular contrast between traditional standards development and microformats can also be summarized as the philosohpical difference between ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori]'' knowledge. That is, traditional standards take more of an ''a priori'' approach, independent of real-world experience (data), while microformats take an ''a posteriori'' approach that is dependent on real-world experience, where "experience" in this sentence refers to actual "experiences" that occur in the real-world, in particular the Web, and are documented as such, not someone being "experienced" or an expert in their field etc.		This particular contrast between traditional standards development and microformats can also be summarized as the philosohpical difference between ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori]'' knowledge. That is, traditional standards take more of an ''a priori'' approach, independent of real-world experience (data), while microformats take an ''a posteriori'' approach that is dependent on real-world experience, where "experience" in this sentence refers to actual "experiences" that occur in the real-world, in particular the Web, and are documented as such, not someone being "experienced" or an expert in their field etc.

			== More Reading ==

			References and see also:

			* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method The scientific method]
			* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 a priori and a posteriori (philosophy)]
			* [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/I3basicquestions.shtml Science Asks Three Basic Questions] - in particular for this topic, "What’s there?"