chris.messina at gmail.com
Thu Mar 30 13:54:36 PST 2006
Yeah, I didn't really think that this topic could be solved (or even
It's a nice pipedream, but I do agree falls outside the boundaries of
the achieveable goals that we've set out w/ microformats.
On 3/30/06, Paul Bryson <paul at msn.com> wrote:
> "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.
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss