Hi Folks,
On the IBM web site is an article that harshly criticizes
Microformats:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml
/library/x-think39.html?ca=dnw
-820
I carefully read the article. I tried to objectively
extract the
assumptions that the author is making. I identified these
three
assumptions:
Assumption #1
Microformats are a disruptive technology; Microformats
dictate how to
structure documents.
Assumption #2
Microformats are attempting to supplant XML documents with
HTML and
XHTML documents.
Assumption #3
The main benefit of Microformats is that it allows graceful
degradation.
--------------------------------------------
Here's how I identified each assumption:
Assumption #1
Microformats are a disruptive technology; Microformats
dictate how to
structure document.
In the article Listing 1 gives an example of a web document
using the
XOXO Microformat. The author finds it unappealing
("ghastly", he
says), and in Listing 2 provides a simpler version.
My analysis: Listing 2 does not implement the same thing as
Listing 1,
so it is not fair to make comparisons. Listing 1 is much
more
structured. In any case, the XOXO does not mandate the
Listing 1
structure be used.
Assumption #2
Microformats are an attempt to supplant XML documents with
HTML and
XHTML documents.
In the article's introduction the author states:
"Microformats should
be one tool available for expression of rich content on the
Web and
should complement, rather than **supplant**, other such
technologies
like XML on the Web, and even Ajax." [I added the **
to emphasize the
point]
Assumption #3
The main benefit of Microformats is that it allows graceful
degradation.
In the section titled Nuance and Nuisance the author
states:
"Microformats folks do this because they feel that XML
is too complex,
not yet ubiquitous enough and, more importantly, doesn't
allow for
graceful degradation, which means that microformats look
like regular
HTML to user agents that do not understand more advanced
technologies
such as XML."
--------------------------------------------
I feel the author's assumptions are inaccurate; regrettably,
giving
readers inaccurate information. Here is my attempt to
correct the
inaccuracies:
Assumption #1
Microformats are a disruptive technology; Microformats
dictate how to
structure document.
Analysis: in fact, Microformats are a non-disruptive
technology;
Microformats are overlaid "behind-the-scenes" on
existing structures.
Assumption #2
Microformats are an attempt to supplant XML documents with
HTML and
XHTML documents.
Analysis: in fact, an XHTML document is an XML document.
Thus,
Microformats are already being used with XML. Personally,
in my own
work, I am injecting Microformats into arbitrary XML
documents.
Assumption #3
The main benefit of Microformats is that it allows graceful
degradation.
Analysis: in fact, the main benefit of Microformats is that
it makes
local knowledge globally useful[1].
--------------------------------------------
Have I accurately identified the article's assumptions? Do
you concur
with my analysis of each assumption? Is there anything else
that you
would add to an analysis of the article?
/Roger
[1]
http://www.xfront-wiki.com/wiki/index.php
?title=Making_Local_Knowlege_G
lobally_Useful
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
|
