[uf-discuss] RFC: Proposal for general purpose microformat
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Fri Dec 2 15:00:50 PST 2005
On 12/2/05 2:38 PM, "Dr. Ernie Prabhakar" <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
> Hi Abramo,
> On Dec 2, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Abramo Bagnara wrote:
>> I think that "general purpose" and "universality" sacrificing
>> is a bad thing, but can we agree that universality *with*
>> simplicity is
>> a benefit?
> I think the challenge has always been "simplicity for whom." I think
> many of us would agree that generality has *some* value, but (in our
> experience) i) universality is too ambitious a goal, and ii) even
> generality comes at *some* price. For example, making things simpler
> for parsers often makes it a little harder for humans, which (around
> here) is considered evil. :-)
I'll go beyond that.
We've already stated that such "generality" and "universality" is a non-goal
In fact, even wasting everyone's time here discussing whether or not it is
good is outside the scope of this list.
There are other forums in which to have theoretical discussions about the
benefits of universality. This isn't one of them.
I hate to be blunt about it, but this is essentially one of the techniques
we must employ to keep the signal to noise ratio high on this list (where
signal="practical/pragmatic/useful today" and noise="theoretical ratholes").
> If you can come up with something that is more general, but just as
> simple for *everyone* involved, I'm sure at least a few of us on the
> list would be willing to hear it (though we'd obviously be skeptical
> at first :-).
Even on the off chance that someone did come up with something like that,
even that, would be off-topic for this list.
A better place for such explorations would probably be a weblog where you
could write about it, and solicit feedback via comments etc.
Those that were interested in such discussions, above and beyond practical
microformats discussions could do so there.
In another message, same thread:
On 12/2/05 2:35 PM, "Ryan King" <ryan at technorati.com> wrote:
>> Can we reach an agreement that to use a "namespace" for microformats
>> specific classes is a good thing?
> Be careful, you might want to read the archives here.
Not only are such namespaces (especially prefixes) a *BAD* thing, but that
even wasting time arguing about them is a bad thing. Another rat-hole that
this community (or at least this mailing list) has no time for. There is
TONS of wasted bandwidth on many many standards/formats email lists about
namespaces that we neither have the inclination nor the time to needlessly
I've added both of these "Topics to Avoid" to the mailing-lists page.
More information about the microformats-discuss