On 24 Jan 2009, at 08:49, Manu Sporny wrote:
li...@ben-ward.co.uk wrote:
This community very intentionally doesn't try create specifications
for
everything. Previous pure-science efforts such as species died
because
it fell way outside the area of active interest of most of this
community's participants.
Apologies to anyone still working and implementing species work. I'd
underestimated the traction. My point about collaborative interest
being an important part of a microformat developer stands, but clearly
my example was wrong. Sorry about that.
While I do agree that it's important that this community is careful
about what it works on, we shouldn't be exclusive and we shouldn't
assume that we know where certain community members want to focus
their
attention. If a couple of people want to come into the Microformats
community to develop their vocabularies, we shouldn't say that there
isn't a place for them.
Absolutely *anyone* should be welcome to work within the process of
this community on use its resources (both people and tools) to support
their work. But, in being welcoming we mustn't be closed to the idea
that some groups or subject matter won't fit with us and could be more
successfully developed in a different manner. We share the class
attribute, and we are but one citizen in HTML semantics.
I, for one, would be interested to see how a bioformats discussion
would
evolve *ba-dum-bum* =P
FNAH!
Ahem, yes: I'd be interested to read along with it and see the work
happen here, for sure. (Aside: Personally I'd have nothing to
contribute until later in the process when they reach the point of
wanting peer review from the POV of it being a ‘microformat’, and so
on, rather than the actual semantics expressed in it, but I would be
prepared to offer that sort of input to as many specs as I can afford
the time to assist.)
Ben
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
