(Difference between revisions)

Jump to: navigation, search
(added a criticism that was added to misconceptions, and followed up with a response)
(Some challenges in current DataPortability trends)
Line 12: Line 12:
* [ Some challenges in current DataPortability trends] - 2008-02-11.  Note item 2, "Many users are not aware when XFN data is included around URLs they enter, much less when the URLs are marked as rel=me."
* ...
* ...

Revision as of 09:06, 12 February 2008



From time to time, there is criticism of a single, or all, microformats. Some is constructive, other less so.

The following list makes no judgement either way, but is included for reference, and in order that microformat advocates who wish to do so, may participate in the original discussion,.

If you choose to do so, please adopt a positive helpful manner, and act as an ambassador for the microformat community.

Unless stated, titles and dates are taken from original postings, verbatim.

Please add new items to the top of the list (they can be sorted into date-of-publication order after a week or so), and replicate the format of those already there.




Summary: criticism is nearly all from Jukka "Yucca" Korpela. If you dig deep (do your best to dig past / ignore / filter inflammatory rhetoric and ridicule, e.g. use of the term "microbabble") you can find a few points we can use to improve microformats.

While it is true that currently web tools are being updated for new microformats, and bug fixes/clarifications in existing microformats, this is no different than web tools being updated to support fixes to HTML in the 1990s, or being continuously updated for the latest CSS features and fixes which they want to support.

Creating an arbitrary number of domain-specific, or culture-specific, or company-specific microformats is a non-goal. See the microformats principles.

See also

criticism was last modified: Wednesday, December 31st, 1969