On 15 Mar 2008, at 22:09, "Jesse Rodgers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is a risk that without the formality, leadership, andstrength
then why doesn't IE8 rename things and add a little bit here
and there? How about Google? They may want their own gCal format
because hCal is just a hobby. Does the microformats community require
formality in order to retain consistency in those that think they know
better?
The fact that we are not a formal standards body doesn't seem to be
causing an issue. In fact, Microsoft have been extremely positive in
their recent hSlice communications: Not misusing the word
'microformat', not breaking hAtom. Everything they did in speccing
their own pattern was correct and played-nice with our existing
community driven microformats. Similarly, Yahoo's recent
communications regarding search enhancements (which use microformats,
RDFa and eRDF) draw a clear distinction between the different
technologies.
To me, it reflects that whilst we ended up in this community-driven,
dictatorless body somewhat by evolution, it does work well enough.
It's important to remember that the technologies we build on — HTML
and the @class and @rel attributes it provides — are not controlled
by us. We are perhaps the largest organised use of @class, but we
have no exclusive claim to the attribute. As such, microformats.org
as an organisation has to respect others creating patterns in their
own way too. If Google wanted gCal, or Yahoo wanted yWidget or
something, they're entitled to it.
I think the best way to interact in such an open space is as a
community.
I think too much formal process, elections,
etc get you into an issue where 'he/she with the most time wins' as
with any volunteer organization.
Completely agreed, it increases the amount of the time the community
has to spend on meta-issues. Even in the past 10 days, only a small
minority of people have shown an inclination to engage in this meta-
discussion.
Administration of the community shouldn't interfere so much as to be
a constant concern. But, when the community aesthetic isn't
conductive to productively working on the microformats themselves,
something is astray and where it requires intervention we will do our
best to correct it.
There is a risk that this could all be replaced and all that work
forgotten... details of this thread aside, perhaps a little benevolent
leadership is required to direct the community?
So long as the output of this community is of high quality, the
formats we product will hold authority on the web.
I don't currently believe that creating formats with high authority
must be created in a highly authoritative environment, though.
They're separate issues, and if the format is high quality, the
process in which it is built is irrelevant.
Cheers,
B
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
