On Apr 20, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
On 4/20/06, Chris Messina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Holy hell. This is rediculous. Gdata == the Word document format
of web 2.0.
Does anyone know *anyone* in Google that will tell us why they're
ignoring microformats??
What value do microformats provide in this context? They hardly seem
ideal for the sort of straight data transport that seems to be the
focus on the gdata stuff.
The same value they provide everywhere else. Human-readable data is
easier for human programmers to work with, even if it's being
consumed and produced entirely by machines. When it's not being used
solely by machines (as RSS and Atom are not), it also cuts down on
data repetition, which reduces opportunity for error and is just less
work for everyone involved. Why should I produce a feed of my events
in Gdata format, when I already have them in microformatted HTML,
which both humans and computers can already read?
Unless they're functionally defective, established standards should
be preferred to new standards because they work with existing tools.
(Don't reinvent the wheel, unless it's not rolling well.) These are
the reasons why Gdata uses RSS and Atom. These are the reasons why
RSS and Atom use HTML. These are the reasons why Gdata should use HTML.
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
