[microformats-discuss] Re: XML & microformats (WAS: Take 3)
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Sat Sep 17 13:14:50 PDT 2005
On 9/17/05 10:29 AM, "Lucas Gonze" <lucas.gonze at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 2005, at 10:07 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
>>> If you already have an application context which uses HTML, and you
>>> want to benefit from third-party hacks, microformats are the one true
>>> The idea of replacing existing XML formats intended solely for machine
>>> processing with the equivalent semantic HTML strikes me as irrational
> On 9/17/05, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
>> I'll go along with that, but I was asking a slightly different
>> question (I think). Is there any benefit to using the semantic
>> tagging of microformats *directly* in XML? For example, should the
>> Atom community adopt "<link rel=tag>" or "<link rel=payment>" rather
>> than, say, adding "<tag>" or "<tipjar>" fields directly?
>> My impression was that Tantek was saying "yes", but that the market
>> (so far) had said "no." But, I'm not even sure I'm asking the right
>> question, much less whether I have the right answer -- which is why I
>> brought it up.
> I'm with the market on this. I think that people working on things
> like Atom would be wise to study and reuse microformat work whenever
I also believe in the converse as well.
People working on microformat work would be wise to study and reuse Atom
work whenever possible.
Hence, for example hReview normatively reuses rel="self" from Atom.
> but importing HTML verbatim opens up a huge can of worms.
Hence we recommend only using valid XHTML microformatted data.
> Maybe it would be productive over the course of 4-5 years, but in the
> short term the chances of creating a nasty mess are high.
Lucas, are there specific examples or experience you can point to that
demonstrated this? I'm curious to know what led you to this conclusion.
More information about the microformats-discuss