David Janes skrev:
On 6/28/07, Pelle W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would say that Microformat = XML and therefor you say that "this reads
microformats" as much as you can say "this reads XML".
Well, microformats are one thing and XML is another so Microformat !=
XML. Or do you mean "Terminology-wise/linguistically can be used in
the same", in which case I ask "does anyone say 'this reads XML'" as a
_marketing_ term. We already have a perfectly good technical name for
microformats, i.e. "microformats".
Both are methods of describing data in a way computers understand which
means that it's what is described by those methods that should be named
and not the methods because no one but developers really care about them
and that's the main problem with giving Microformats a different name I
think - it doesn't do anything in itself and the things described by the
different standards is so "simple" and natural that it's hard to give
them any special name.
What differs a microformat address from a usual address on a webpage?
Well - the latter kan be read by computers but it's still the same
address so it's still just a simple address. It adds nothing other than
the possibility of the browser understanding and extracting it and it's
the same with many XML-standards such as RSS - it adds data which the
browser/computer can understand and extract.
If firefox needs a catchy phrase - then perhaps use "Increased ability
to extract data from webpages" or something - because it's just as basic
as that - no new names because a name is only useful for developers who
needs to distinguish between methods - but the user doesn't care about
the methods - they care about result!
/ Pelle
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
