On 7/30/06 10:35 AM, "Simon Cozens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tantek ?elik: >> http://microformats.org/wiki/process >> Second, the folks working on the citation microformat to date have done *a >> lot* of work along the lines of the process which I recommend you read to >> understand the current state of progress: >> >> http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-examples >> http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-formats >> http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-brainstorming >> http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-faq > > Oh, I've read it all. Excellent. > I'm just of the opinion that following process, > collating examples, performing analysis, holding discussion, forming > consensus, trialling implementations, reviewing implementations, and issuing > specifications is a way to ensure that nothing gets done, ever. Not true. hReview was very successfully developed, deployed, and is now adopted widely per the process. > The citation process started a year ago. There's still, apparently, nothing I > can use today - at least, nothing better than the ad-hocery I just created. Citations are *particularly* difficult given how many smart people have tried to solve this particular problem in the past. I do think that we are getting *very close* to a draft hCite, and perhaps it is time that we as a community focused on making that happen in the next few weeks. What if we set a goal for hCite 0.1 of August 30? Is that reasonable? In addition, I definitely encourage you to continue with the ad-hoccery and experimentation with your own site and content. That's exactly the kind of experience that can help with making a practical microformat. Thanks much for your input, efforts, and for bringing up the citation microformat again. Sometimes is just takes *one more* person to bring something up before it is solved. Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss