On Oct 30, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
>> Well, as I did when we first spoke months ago, I
firmly disagree, and
>> over time, I think you will be proven wrong.
There's simply no point
>> in having multiple instantiations of the same data
in a text-based
>> format (I'm exempting relational databases).
>>
>
> I agree. Universal formats are very useful, and if uF
is being used
> by one aspect of the program, why not by all? I
currently use XOXO to
> backup my reading list / transfer it to other feed
readers. Why
> should this not be able to apply across the board to
all microformats?
> It may not be part of 80% or initial-draft use cases,
but if it
> starts happening, I'll be all for it.
Currently, I can't name a single IM client that uses
semanticful HTML
for logging. In fact, there's been a trend *away* from HTML
lately.
Microformats are supposed to represent what exists in the
wild, no?
Whatever the validity of Chris's points about redundancy or
future
directions, isn't the idea that uFs are supposed to
represent what's
in the wild overriding?
More and more applications are using HTML for display, and
less and
less are using it for storage. In fact, Adium was quite
close to using
SQLite (a relational database) for it's log format -- and
probably
would have if not for the braindead implementation of
Apple's
Spotlight code (that's a whole different story).
I appreciate that there may be an (obvious) initial bias on
this list
to using microformats to solve a problem, and that in the
outside
community, there may be a bit of a bias as to *not* using
microformats
to solve a problem. This is totally expected. In either
case, I'm as
much here to be convinced as I am to convince people. So I
welcome
people to comment on these emails, even if you feel like
you're not
saying much more than "I agree."
-Colin
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
|