reuse: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
m (Replace <entry-title> with {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE: Reuse }} | |||
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]] | |||
Latest revision as of 16:32, 18 July 2020
One of several microformats principles.
microformats reuse building blocks from widely adopted standards:
- semantic, meaningful (X)HTML, i.e. POSH. See SemanticXHTMLDesignPrinciples for more details.
- existing microformats
- as a whole, e.g. use hCard for representing people
- in part, reusing particular semantic class names, following microformats naming principles
- well established schemas from interoperable RFCs
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.