Therefore, uFs don't need a user-facing name - their
applications do.
Right, we need a general user facing way of describing microformat
detection, in order to describe the various applications (like Web
browsers, feed readers and extensions like Operator) that let the
user take actions on microformatted content. For instance, this
description would finish the sentence "features of Firefox 3 include
support for offline Web applications, private browsing, blocking
malware, and __[user facing way of saying microformat detection]__"
...data detection?
...semantic browsing?
...data browsing?
...semantic data detection?
...semantic data browsing?
...semantic data navigating?
If Operator and Firefox 3 are in a category of uF enabled
applications, what should that category of applications be called?
Or another way of putting it:
Feed Readers :: RSS
______ :: microformats
-Alex
On Jun 28, 2007, at 2:39 AM, Frances Berriman wrote:
On 28/06/07, Pelle W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/27/07, Tara Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Although I heart the idea of language for non-experts, I'm
wondering
>> how public facing Microformats, as a general term, is.
>>
>> I've thought about this before...I can see the specific
microformats,
>> like hCard and hCal and hReview being public facing...and, in
reality,
>> these are pretty descriptive. Maybe they just need some sort of
iconic
>> marker (like RSS has)...which I think has been attempted before.
I agree with Tara here. Microformats is interesting for developers
because it tells us in what way the solution works but for my mum it
would tell nothing. My mom knows however what an address is and
what a
calendar is and because of that it's the microformats in itself that
should be given common names like "web feeds" for RSS. I don't
know but
have XML been given a humane name yet? Because XML is to RSS what
Microformats is to hCard.
I concur on this line of thinking. Microformats are the technological
name - my mum should never have to come across the term any more than
she should have to come across the term XML. I think Operator does a
good job of hiding the term in that it simply shows what you can
actually do with data in the page (add this to my google calendar
etc.). Therefore, uFs don't need a user-facing name - their
applications do.
If Microformats should be given a more humane name then that would be
something about semantics. Semanticdata perhaps - but it wouldn't
make
anyone happier I think because the only ones who would be interested
would be those who already knows what Microformats is.
>> As far as talking about Microformats under one banner, I don't
know if
>> the distinction really needs to be made. i think that may be
what POSH
>> was trying to say: use plain old semantic html...but even that is
>> talking to developers and advanced content producers.
I've said it before, but I don't think there's any need to reiterate
what semantic HTML for is via *another* name, for developers. POSH is
bad enough.
--
Frances Berriman
http://fberriman.com
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
