[uf-discuss] added hReview-aggregate and rel-author as drafts, archived a few others, uf2 for new ufs

[Tantek Çelik]

New drafts, archived drafts/spec, and new microformats in general.


1. New drafts.

Since both:
* hReview-aggregate
* rel-author
have shown fairly broad publishing support, and are consumed by
popular/mainstream sites/applications (e.g. search engines), I've
added them as "Drafts" per the microformats process[1].

http://microformats.org/wiki/#Drafts


2. Archived drafts/spec

In addition, I created a new section "Archived" (Ben Ward's
suggestion) to collect microformats that haven't really taken off,
that is appear to lack any major publishing/consuming support and have
moved the following there:
http://microformats.org/wiki/#Archived
* hAudio
* rel-directory
* rel-enclosure
* robots exclusion
* VoteLinks
* xFolk

If anyone knows of major publishing support or major consuming support
for any of these, please add links to such sites/applications to the
spec pages' respective "Examples in the Wild" *-examples-in-wild or
"Implementation" *-implementations sections/pages respectively and we
can reconsider accordingly, or perhaps they'll be used as informative
data/research in the development of future microformats.

For more on this see:
http://microformats.org/wiki/process#related_issues_questions_regarding_document_stages


3. new microformats in general - let's use microformats2 syntax only.

While the subtopic of new microformats in general may be more
appropriate for "microformats-new" (and perhaps we can fork it there
if discussion appears substantial), I thought it made sense to
introduce this within the broader context of microformat spec
transitions (forward/backward) in general and thus it's here.

Since microformats2 has been stable for quite some time now and we're
starting to see publishing on individual and organization sites [2],
for all the advantages[3] provided by microformats2 over classic
microformats, at this point I think it makes the most sense to develop
any new microformats using microformat2 syntax *only*, and that
includes any exploratory discussions in progress[4].

As an example of this I'm restarting the citation microformat
effort[5], with a simplified proposal using microformats2 syntax,
based on an in-person brainstorm of a serendipitous meeting of
web-citation-interested-parties during the recent IndieWebCamp
2012.[6] I'll follow-up with that on the microformats-new list when
I've posted a new proposal to the wiki.

Thanks,

Tantek


[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/process#Moving_from_Stage_to_Stage
[2] http://microformats.org/wiki/uf2#Examples_in_the_wild
[3] http://microformats.org/wiki/uf2#ADVANTAGES
[4] http://microformats.org/wiki/exploratory-discussions
[5] http://microformats.org/wiki/citation
[6] http://indiewebcamp.com/2012/Academic_Citations_Web
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microforma...@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

[Manu Sporny]

On 08/03/2012 08:32 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> 2. Archived drafts/spec
>
> In addition, I created a new section "Archived" (Ben Ward's
> suggestion) to collect microformats that haven't really taken off,
> that is appear to lack any major publishing/consuming support and
> have moved the following there:
> http://microformats.org/wiki/#Archived
>
> * hAudio

What constitutes "haven't really taken off"?
Since when do we have a timeframe for "taking off"?
Where are these definitions and time-frames documented on the site? I
couldn't find it.

Wikipedia is currently marking up over 119,555 songs and albums with
hAudio markup - why is that not enough?

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Which is better - RDFa Lite or Microdata?
http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/