microformats

(Difference between revisions)

Jump to: navigation, search
(aded thoughts on how microformats are different)
m (more thoughts on how microformats are different)
Line 48: Line 48:
== more thoughts on how microformats are different ==
== more thoughts on how microformats are different ==
-
There are plenty of existing formats that are *nearly* totally useless/ignored
+
There are plenty of existing formats that are ''nearly'' totally useless/ignored.
-
They're not *totally* useless though. They're useful to see what at least somebody thought might be useful, which unfortunately is typically a lone-inventor working a-priori without any domain expertise.
+
They're not ''totally'' useless though. They're useful in that they illustrate what at least someone thought might be useful, which unfortunately is typically a lone-inventor working a-priori without any domain expertise.
-
Or there is the other extreme. Lots of corporate inventors working with plenty of experience, over-designing a format for what *might* be needed some day.
+
Or there is the other extreme. Lots of corporate inventors working with plenty of experience, over-designing a format for what ''might'' be needed some day.  In particularly bad cases, the corporate vendors collude to prevent openness and/or adoptability by the open source community.  Media standards [http://dannyayers.com/archives/2005/09/24/qotd-23/ often suffer from this kind of deliberate "strategic" positioning].
-
So we try to combat all of those problems with the microformat approach.
+
We to combat all of those problems with the microformat approach.
* We're not lone-inventors, we're a [http://microformats.org/discuss/ community].
* We're not lone-inventors, we're a [http://microformats.org/discuss/ community].
* We don't work a-priori, we require documentation of existing examples, previous attempts at formats. See [[process]].
* We don't work a-priori, we require documentation of existing examples, previous attempts at formats. See [[process]].
-
* When lacking domain expertise, we seek out the domain experts to provide it.
+
* When lacking domain expertise, we seek out the domain experts to provide it, and we immerse ourselves in examples and prior art from the domain (see previous point).
* We're a mix of corporate, independent, hobbyist, enthusiast.
* We're a mix of corporate, independent, hobbyist, enthusiast.
* We don't over-design.  We under-design, deliberately, and then only add things when they are absolutely necessary.
* We don't over-design.  We under-design, deliberately, and then only add things when they are absolutely necessary.
-
Some ask what the purpose of the (intented) standards is.
+
Some ask what the purpose of the (intended) standards is.
Why do you need purpose? More often than not, premature focus on purpose tends to distort data formats towards a particular application which may not be all that relevant. Hence rather than focus on a-priori purpose, we focus on modeling existing behavior, with the knowledge that additional structure will yield plenty of interesting uses, most of which we will not be able to a-priori predict.
Why do you need purpose? More often than not, premature focus on purpose tends to distort data formats towards a particular application which may not be all that relevant. Hence rather than focus on a-priori purpose, we focus on modeling existing behavior, with the knowledge that additional structure will yield plenty of interesting uses, most of which we will not be able to a-priori predict.
This is obviously a very different approach than traditional data format efforts.
This is obviously a very different approach than traditional data format efforts.

Revision as of 15:48, 25 September 2005

Contents

microformats

What are microformats?

microformats are:

microformats are not:

the microformats principles

current microformats

See the main page for a list of current microformats specifications, drafts, and discussions.

more thoughts on how microformats are different

There are plenty of existing formats that are nearly totally useless/ignored.

They're not totally useless though. They're useful in that they illustrate what at least someone thought might be useful, which unfortunately is typically a lone-inventor working a-priori without any domain expertise.

Or there is the other extreme. Lots of corporate inventors working with plenty of experience, over-designing a format for what might be needed some day. In particularly bad cases, the corporate vendors collude to prevent openness and/or adoptability by the open source community. Media standards often suffer from this kind of deliberate "strategic" positioning.

We to combat all of those problems with the microformat approach.

Some ask what the purpose of the (intended) standards is.

Why do you need purpose? More often than not, premature focus on purpose tends to distort data formats towards a particular application which may not be all that relevant. Hence rather than focus on a-priori purpose, we focus on modeling existing behavior, with the knowledge that additional structure will yield plenty of interesting uses, most of which we will not be able to a-priori predict.

This is obviously a very different approach than traditional data format efforts.

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

Views