From Microformats Wiki
Revision as of 04:12, 18 July 2007 by Evan (talk | contribs) (Well, not entirely ''criticism'' per se)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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.



  • Committing An Act of hEresy - Part I - 2006-12-11. Completely misrepresents microformats.
  • Use of 'abbr' in microformats - 2006-09-20. Issues: use of 'abbr'; Julian dates
  • Must Ignore vs. Microformats - 2006-07-12. Issues: "XML would be better"
  • RDFa vs microformats - 2006-05-29. Issues: lack of co-ordination & compatibility.
    • Let me say that I actually like and use µFs a lot. I just think there's a potential for a conflict with RDFa in the future, and I think that it's best for developers if that conflict doesn't happen. --Evan 21:12, 17 Jul 2007 (PDT)
  • limitations of rel="tag" microformat - 2006-01-17 Summary: Under the current draft, tags and relevant tagspaces are potentially hard to create; and it's still easy to abuse the system. Humans can still be tricked and so can the machines. It's a great spec if you happen to have a compliant directory structure, but if your site doesn't match then you either recreate your entire system... or, more likely, you sadly advise the client that tags aren't happening.

See also