reuse: Difference between revisions

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edit of CntAob, changed back to last version by ChristopheDucamp)
(entry-title, see also)
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<h1> Reuse </h1>
<entry-title> Reuse </entry-title>


One of several microformats [[principles]].
One of several microformats [[principles]].
Line 14: Line 14:


Thus the burden of proof is always on those who wish to change or modify what already "works" to a great extent today.  One clear instance of this is microformats' re-use of existing implied schemas (based on research of real world [[examples]]) and looking at existing widely interoperable standards as a basis for vocabulary as noted above, rather than inventing new idealistic a priori schemas or inventing new terminology for concepts already named in existing formats.
Thus the burden of proof is always on those who wish to change or modify what already "works" to a great extent today.  One clear instance of this is microformats' re-use of existing implied schemas (based on research of real world [[examples]]) and looking at existing widely interoperable standards as a basis for vocabulary as noted above, rather than inventing new idealistic a priori schemas or inventing new terminology for concepts already named in existing formats.
== see also ==
* [[principles]]
* [[process]]

Revision as of 00:17, 31 March 2013

<entry-title> Reuse </entry-title>

One of several microformats principles.

microformats reuse building blocks from widely adopted standards:

In general "doing what already works" (i.e. re-use) is greatly valued over "changing everything and starting from scratch" (i.e. re-invention).

Thus the burden of proof is always on those who wish to change or modify what already "works" to a great extent today. One clear instance of this is microformats' re-use of existing implied schemas (based on research of real world examples) and looking at existing widely interoperable standards as a basis for vocabulary as noted above, rather than inventing new idealistic a priori schemas or inventing new terminology for concepts already named in existing formats.

see also