Drew McLellan said:
> So that's the idea for discussion. It may be naive. My motivation is to
> reach to the average designer and developer folk in a way that's
> accessible to them.
I think it's a great idea, personally. As someone who is rather new to
microformats myself, I found the wiki could
I agree. I think this is a really, really good idea.
Another thing I'd like to see (and this may exist, but I've missed
it?) is a listing of formats that have been suggested and rejected for
whatever reason. It's fairly (barely) managable at the moment since a
person can have a dig about in the
Frances Berriman said:
> Another thing I'd like to see (and this may exist, but I've missed
> it?) is a listing of formats that have been suggested and rejected for
> whatever reason. It's fairly (barely) managable at the moment since a
> person can have a dig about in the mailing list for previou
On 10/6/06, Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frances Berriman said:
> Another thing I'd like to see (and this may exist, but I've missed
> it?) is a listing of formats that have been suggested and rejected for
> whatever reason. It's fairly (barely) managable at the moment since a
> person
Frances Berriman said:
>
> Yeah - definitely. It would be nice to allow an easy way for people
> to get into the discussion and get a good overview of where we already
> are (what's worked and what hasn't) before they even get to the
> mailing list, basically. Apart from anything, the list is goi
On 10/6/06, Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was thinking: seperate to previous suggestions/discussions sectiong, it
might be worth creating an FAQ from the IRC/mailing list so that people
can scan quickly to find help for themselves.
On the wiki? If so - that's easy enough to do. It
Frances Berriman said:
>
> On the wiki? If so - that's easy enough to do. It'll take us a
> little while to filter all the information on to it, but many hands...
> etc.
I suppose it would be easier to set up after the beginners' mailing list
has been created.
I certainly hope this takes off in
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> Maybe it's worth taking a tip from some of the 'Web 2.0'-style sites
>and changing the main site to use friendly, if basic language
Agreed.
Sadly there seems to have been some resistance to this idea, previously
and a lot of
On 10/6/06, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> Maybe it's worth taking a tip from some of the 'Web 2.0'-style sites
>and changing the main site to use friendly, if basic language
Agreed.
Sadly there seems to have been
Andy Mabbett said:
[-deletia-]
> I've done some work on:
>
> http://microformats.org/wiki/introduction
>
> which seemed as good a place as any, to start.
[-deletia-]
Looks great! That's exactly what I imagined.
--
Chris Ball
mail - chris [at] rubal [dot] co [dot] uk
irc - blueNine: #web,
So that's the idea for discussion. It may be naive. My motivation is to
reach to the average designer and developer folk in a way that's
accessible to them.
Thoughts?
A lot of the reasons you've raised might also apply to people who
simply want to *implement* uf rather than get into the discussi
On 10/10/06 4:54 PM, "Ben Buchanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So that's the idea for discussion. It may be naive. My motivation is to
>> reach to the average designer and developer folk in a way that's
>> accessible to them.
>> Thoughts?
>
> A lot of the reasons you've raised might also apply
Tantek Çelik wrote:
> > A lot of the reasons you've raised might also apply to people who
> > simply want to *implement* uf rather than get into the discussions
> > about creating them in the first place. I wonder if one list could
> > server that need as well as the newcomers? Just a thought.
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tantek Çelik
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>What about creating a new list for *new* microformats, and keep
>microformats-discuss for general discussion, helping newcomers and new
>implementers alike?
Better to create two new lists, perhaps:
microformats-prop
In the spirit of simplest solution first, why not start with just *one* new
list for new microformats?
I think "propose" is too limiting because there is a lot more involved in
the development of new microformats than just proposals (in fact, the more
important parts are *not* the proposal).
I li
How about microformats-new , along with an open microformats-dev, and keep
microformats-
discuss for existing, established microformats.
microformats-dev could mean "the development of new microformats"; perhaps
microformats-applications would be a better name...
--Bob.
This is what Tantek Çe
I find it's a lot easier to follow one list rather than three... but
perhaps that's just me.
On 10/14/06, Bob Jonkman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about microformats-new , along with an open microformats-dev, and keep
microformats-
discuss for existing, established microformats.
microformats
As someone who's helped set up and determine mailing list policy, it's
MUCH easier to have as few lists as possible. I think the idea of a
"newbie" list is good, but everything else is really relevant to
everyone involved. When creating new mailing lists, a good question to
ask is: "How man
On 10/16/06 5:27 AM, "Colin Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As someone who's helped set up and determine mailing list policy, it's
> MUCH easier to have as few lists as possible.
Colin, I tend to agree with this, and as such that's why we only started
with three lists which were varied base
I was not sure if the discuss list was the best place to send the
"spread the semantic web" message (thanks Chris, for suggesting this).
So is this the best place for pure marketing messages?
Or is this frowned upon?
Best,
Alex
On 10/14/06, Bob Jonkman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about mi
On Oct 16, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
I'd like to see some suggestions for the name of this new list.
Here is
what I have so far:
* microformats-new (focusing on discussing "new" microformats)
* microformats-research (focusing on the essential, and often
overlooked by
first-t
Scott, someone had previously proposed microformats-research. It achieves the
same goal as microformats-process and seems to be a little more clear.
-justin
**
Justin Thorp
Contractor - Library of Congress
e - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
p - 202/707-9541
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/16/06
On 10/16/06 10:44 AM, "Justin Thorp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott, someone had previously proposed microformats-research. It achieves the
> same goal as microformats-process and seems to be a little more clear.
Justin, Scott, good points and suggestions.
Just so we can keep track of the
2006 8:27 AM
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Idea: beginners/getting started list
As someone who's helped set up and determine mailing list policy, it's MUCH
easier to have as few lists as possible. I think the idea of a "newbie" list
is good, but everyth
Scott Reynen wrote:
On Oct 16, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
I'd like to see some suggestions for the name of this new list. Here is
what I have so far:
* microformats-new (focusing on discussing "new" microformats)
I think that one suffers from a simlar problem to the -propose
su
My thoughts on list re-organization:
microformats-process sounds like it would be about the microformats
/process/, which is generally fairly stable, even if newbies don't quite
understand it at first.
microformats-research reads like it would be about either researching
microformats or microform
On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I like both of those, but I'm more in favour of -process because
research is just one part of the process.
On Oct 17, 2006, at 12:08 AM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
My vote would go to microformats-new.
I added these votes to the wiki. Please corr
Tantek Çelik wrote:
Other suggestions for a new list name for this purpose?
How about one of these?
* microformats-wg (Working Group)
* microformats-tf (Task Force)
I've added them to the mailing-list-proposals wiki page.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
___
I set up this separate wiki a little while back to try to cultivate
this kind of entry-level information:
http://microformats.pbwiki.com/
I haven't had much time to maintain it (go figure) but it could be a
place to have, maybe 5-6 pages that try to give publishers some very
simply ways to make
That's a good point -- and I think actually starting to look at what
you can *do* with microformats and providing technology
implementations, rather than just formats, would be an additional
purpose for this new list.
Something like microformats-implementors?
Chris
On 10/10/06, Ben Buchanan <[E
The -dev list has been pretty dead since June... so it might be good
to push it forward... however the distinction between -dev and
-discuss is lost on me, since -discuss is used almost exclusively by
the community for all bidness.
According to the site [1], we have:
* microformats-discuss: This
Chris Messina wrote:
> So what if we changed the definition of -dev to:
>
> * microformats-dev: This is a public list for discussion of
> implementating microformats. Unmoderated, open subscription.
>
> If there were to be a new list, perhaps we call it:
>
> * microformats-suggest: This is a p
It would be good to resolve this matter -- discuss should be probably
be retained... but I like
microformats-propose
and
microformats-applied (instead of apply)
Anyone else? Who has the authority to actually make this happen? ;)
Chris
On 10/14/06, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In
33 matches
Mail list logo
