[uf-discuss] Format-of-Formats?

Paul Bryson paul at msn.com
Thu Mar 30 13:32:33 PST 2006

"Tantek Ç elik" wrote...
> 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.

Why aren't they just using DTD or SML Schema for this?  That was the first 
thing I thought of when Joe first posted.


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list