process-issues-closed

Process issues that have been resolved and all related to-do items completed.

2005

• 2005-07-03 raised by User:Bud
  1. I would point out that the paving the cowpaths method suggests that all you are doing is enshrining current practice. One question I asked myself is how something like reltag fits into that. hCard certainly does. Not sure about hReview. What I would say more is that you are "enabling emerging practices". Maybe you should say "widening the ferrett holes".
     • RESOLVED ACCEPTED. As with any metaphor, trying to think it through too literally will yield inaccurate results. However, given the potential for confusion this is worth some additional clarification. Explicitly noted in Document Current Behavior that cowpaths = examples, and examples = content publishing, not existing formats.

2007

• 2007-09-07 raised by Manu Sporny
  1. Issue 1: What constitutes "Enough Examples"
     • RESOLVED ACCEPTED FAQ. Added to process-faq: Some amount of diversity among large sites (e.g. social content hosts), small sites (independent publishers) helps to provide a good amount of research. If you're not sure, ask in IRC and on the mailing lists.
  2. Issue 2: Proper interpretation of W3C standards
     • RESOLVED REJECTED NO INFO. Too little information, nothing actionable, and link is dead "DBWiki has a problem". Next time, please include entire issue here rather than offsite. - Tantek 20:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
     • REOPEN REQUEST - case study exists here: http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/bitmunk-case-study/
  3. Issue 3: Keeping up with changes to the process becomes frustrating
     • RESOLVED REJECTED NO INFO. Too little information, nothing actionable, and link is dead "DBWiki has a problem". Next time, please include entire issue here rather than offsite. - Tantek 20:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
     • REOPEN REQUEST - case study exists here: http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/bitmunk-case-study/
  4. Issue 4: There is no clear order of operations for "The Process". This makes uF creation a trial-and-error process that can frustrate new members, that may waste time on things that don't matter. It also annoys old members of the community, that have to answer the same questions over and over again.
     • RESOLVED ACCEPTED. process order has been clarified. In addition, if you see a common question on email etc., please add it as a process-issue suggested FAQ and we can answer and add it to the process-faq.
  5. Issue 5: Analayzing the receipts-examples is difficult because we don't have a central location to dump the example, scrubbed HTML. We need a central SVN repository.
     • RESOLVED REJECTED NO NEED. Examples should be written up and analyzed by hand on the wiki. Adding another tool that requires client-side setup and command-line proficiency raises the barrier too much for analysis and verfication thereof.
  6. Issue 6: We don't have a central Microformats code repository for tools and utilities that are useful to the community.
     1. RESOLVED REJECTED OFFTOPIC.
     2. hg.microformats.org is the code repository we have been using for several years now. There is also a wiki that can be used to link to various implementations. A central code repository, or lack of, should not be an issue in the process when developing a new format
     3. There's also: https://github.com/microformats

see also

• process-issues