[uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?

[Tantek Ç elik]

Chris,

The perceived value that you see is exactly why this whole topic is such a
massive trap. 

It is very seductive (especially to programmers) to think that you can
define a format for formats (a meta-format shall we say), *once*, then
implement *only that*, then have every specific format magically work.

In practice, this never[*] happens.  It's been tried *numerous* times. DTD,
XML Schema, etc.  In practice, key portions/features of really *useful*
specific formats (like HTML) *always* fall outside of the meta-format, and
*must* be specified in prose of a specification.  This is specifically why I
designed XMDP to be to absolute minimum of what is necessary to
define/recognize a vocabulary.  I'm working on some extensions for includes
(to transclude multiple XMDP profiles or portions thereof into a single
profile), but other than that, I consider XMDP "done".

In the spirit of "don't reinvent what you can re-use", anyone seriously
desiring to work on a format-of-formats should *first* teach themselves DTD,
and XML Schema *at a minimum*, before having the arrogance to think they can
do better.

And yes, exploring a format-of-formats is very much off topic and not just
outside, but *against* the philosophies and principles of microformats.

 http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats

Thanks,

Tantek

[*]The *one* exception that I know of to this that adherents have had (at
least) some amount of success with is RDF.  If you're really interested in
generic format-of-formats type discussions and all the abstractions present
therein, there is already a community that has far more experience and
understanding and desire in that space than the microformats community.

On 3/30/06 11:41 AM, "Chris Messina" <chris.messina at gmail.com> wrote:

> I do see this work having value, especially if browsers and
> client-side apps are going to be able to keep up with the various
> microformats as they are created and improved.
> 
> I don't know much about the history of this kind of discussion, but it
> sounds useful *if* it can develop standards to ease the deployment of
> new microformats into the wild...
> 
> Chris
> 
> On 3/30/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>> 
>>> Gotcha... sorry for the intrusion... didn't want to stir things up..
>> 
>> No worries.  After all, most of are here *in order* to stir things
>> up. :-)
>> 
>>> it certainly is a big challenge.  A gentleman on SB recommended
>>> Microcontent Description (MCD) as a starting point.  Ernie, if you're
>>> up for it, I'd be interested in getting something going.  I think this
>>> list is the place to do it but I certainly respect Tantak's desire to
>>> avoid the quagmire!
>> 
>> Understood.
>> 
>>> Maybe a sub-list of some sort that Ernie and I moderate?  Best,  Joe
>> 
>> Not a bad idea at all.
>> 
>> Tantek, I realize you may think this a complete waste of time, but
>> would you be willing to at least quarantine us lunatics in our own
>> "microformats-schema" mailing list?  If nothing else, it provides a
>> safety valve to prevent the issue from cropping up here
>> periodically.  And who knows? Every 65 million years or so, something
>> *does* manage to boil the ocean. :-)
>> 
>> -- Ernie P.
>> 
>> On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3/30/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>> 
>>>>> Is this format-of-formats already done?  If so, I apologize, can you
>>>>> point me to it?  If not, what has been done and would it be
>>>>> premature
>>>>> for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much
>>>>> feedback from everybody here, of course)?
>>>> 
>>>> This is actually an FAQ, and a fairly tricky one at that, since it is
>>>> isomorphic to the problem of a "general purpose parser."  I believe
>>>> Tantek has declared that discussion off-topic for this list, since it
>>>> has the potential to be a never-ending rathole.  However, I can't
>>>> find such a statement on the FAQ:
>>>> 
>>>> http://microformats.org/wiki/faq#Basic_Microformat_Questions
>>>> 
>>>> Tantek, is that in fact the policy, and is it documented somewhere?
>>>> 
>>>> That said, there are a few of us crazy enough to want to try, which
>>>> I'm open to doing off-list if you're interested...
>>>> 
>>>> -- Ernie P.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 30, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Joe Reger, Jr. wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've been lurking for a while and truly appreciate all of the great
>>>>> work going into microformats right now!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I saw a message on the Structured Blogging mailing list that got me
>>>>> thinking about a format-of-formats... a standard way to describe a
>>>>> format.  My thoughts are here:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.joereger.com/entry-logid7-eventid5003-Structured-
>>>>> Blogging-FormatofFormats.log
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I posted, I realized that I haven't checked in with Tantek and
>>>>> others regarding the concept of a format-of-formats.  I've seen a
>>>>> lot
>>>>> of Atom/RDF used.  I was a proponent of XML Schema a while back.
>>>>> I've
>>>>> been dabbling with Xforms.  XUL is out there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My basic position is that we should be able to provide a common
>>>>> format
>>>>> for the description of a microformat.  By creating a standard to
>>>>> describe the formats we free toolmakers to create an implementation
>>>>> and then be done with it.  Once we have support from WordPress, MT,
>>>>> Drupal, LJ, etc then we can spawn microformats more quickly,
>>>>> requiring
>>>>> little or no development on the toolmaker part.  Toolmakers will
>>>>> compete by providing advanced features in their implementation (like
>>>>> CSS override hooks, see blog post).  Aggregators like
>>>>> Technorati/PubSub will be able to build advanced functionality on
>>>>> top
>>>>> of specific formats and will compete at that level.  For example,
>>>>> Technorati may create Technorati Music while PubSub may create
>>>>> PubSub
>>>>> Movies... their investment differentiates and end-users win.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is this format-of-formats already done?  If so, I apologize, can you
>>>>> point me to it?  If not, what has been done and would it be
>>>>> premature
>>>>> for me to start work on such a draft specification (after much
>>>>> feedback from everybody here, of course)?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for getting me up to speed!  Keep up the great work!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Joe Reger
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> microformats-discuss mailing list
>>>>> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
>>>>> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> microformats-discuss mailing list
>>>> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
>>>> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> microformats-discuss mailing list
>>> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
>>> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> microformats-discuss mailing list
>> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
>> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss