From Microformats Wiki
Revision as of 00:50, 4 April 2013 by Tantek (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by ABIDEEN1 (Talk) to last version by Tantek)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

<entry-title>Exploratory Discussions</entry-title>

Per the microformats process: research and analysis of real-world examples, existing formats, and brainstorming to motivate the microformat. Please check rejected-formats before making additions.

Sort each section alphabetically. Group similar efforts.


New: microformats 2 has sufficiently stabilized to start using on public web pages and developing parsers and applications. Current exploratory microformats should switch to the microformats-2 syntax for further development.

The following exploratory discussions are being actively pursued, generally, edited in the last month, and/or being utilized/experimented with by multiple sites in the wild.

media related

Media related efforts are very active in the microformats community and thus have been grouped here for convenience


The following explorations are fairly inactive, though they may just be waiting for folks with sufficient interest and use cases to help further their development. Some of them could probably be consolidated, or even rejected with suggestions of re-using existing microformats.

blogging related

education related

productivity related

commerce products listings related


The following exploratory discussions resulted in a microformat.

solo pursuits

The following are primarily pursued by a single individual and thus have not generated widespread interest in the community yet. In general, solo pursuits are discouraged.

The goal of a format is to help human communication, the exchange of information between two people. Thus if only one community member is really interested in pursuing it (enough to work on it in the community), it's not important as a format. While a list of contributors or supporters helps demonstrate some broader interest, it is still insufficient if a format is only really being worked on in the community by a single individual.

failed to follow process

All too often it seems people propose a new microformat without following the process (most often not even reading apparently), nor creating the proper research pages first (and doing the research), nor sometimes even reading the introduction and how-to-play pages. Such proposals are relegated to this section to make it clear that they are worse than mere solo pursuits, they are (most of the time) solo pursuits by people who haven't even read the process page!

In short, if you, the proposer, don't even bother to spend the time reading and attempting to use existing microformats (as the Main_Page, introduction, AND process page ask you to do so), how can you expect anyone else to bother to read and consider your proposal?

did not read main page

Even worse, proposals by people who apparently didn't even bother to read the rest of the Main_Page! These are proposals that failed to follow the process and were added by the author to the Main_Page where it explicitly says to follow the process (often right next to where they added the link to their brainstorm proposal).