Comments on: Complexity, Bureaucracy, Fairness http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/ AAaaaaahhhhrrrrrrr! Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:12:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: more on microformats [@lesscode.org] http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-376 Sun, 04 Sep 2005 19:03:09 +0000 http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-376 <p>[...] I&#8217;ve written previously on the trade-offs that microformats make in vocabulary design. I&#8217;m still not sure how I feel about the short-string issue, but it appears no one is waiting for me to make up my mind, so I figured I&#8217;d try it out. [...]</p> […] I’ve written previously on the trade-offs that microformats make in vocabulary design. I’m still not sure how I feel about the short-string issue, but it appears no one is waiting for me to make up my mind, so I figured I’d try it out. […]

]]> by: Anonymous http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-148 Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:23:37 +0000 http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-148 <p>Wow, I had no idea it was you Robert that had posted that article. That explains a lot.</p> Wow, I had no idea it was you Robert that had posted that article. That explains a lot.

]]> by: Robert Sayre http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-147 Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:58:49 +0000 http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-147 <p><s>None of those are key points, because this post had nothing to do with your article or messages.</s> <i>(Didn't mean to sound so irritated)</i> It was only Tantek's comment that I disagreed with.</p> None of those are key points, because this post had nothing to do with your article or messages. (Didn’t mean to sound so irritated) It was only Tantek’s comment that I disagreed with.

]]> by: jcgregorio http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-146 Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:46:40 +0000 http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-146 <p>I believe several key points are being missed in the rush to revulsion:</p> <ol> <li>In [1] I clearly state that there would be a registry for microformat extensions to APP collections, thus no squatting allowed.</li> <li>While I have argued that some things should be put into the XHTML content, I also believe that there is some stuff that clearly belongs outside of it, for example, the pub:control [2].</li> <li>I also believe that some RSS extensions should have been handled in content and not a separate namespaced element. How less functional is an enclosure element versus "a href='' rel='enclosure'" ?</li> </ol> <p>[1] <a href="http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg01245.html">http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg01245.html</a><br /> [2] <a href="http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg01242.html">http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg01242.html</a></p> I believe several key points are being missed in the rush to revulsion:

  1. In [1] I clearly state that there would be a registry for microformat extensions to APP collections, thus no squatting allowed.
  2. While I have argued that some things should be put into the XHTML content, I also believe that there is some stuff that clearly belongs outside of it, for example, the pub:control [2].
  3. I also believe that some RSS extensions should have been handled in content and not a separate namespaced element. How less functional is an enclosure element versus “a href='’ rel=’enclosure’” ?

[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg01245.html
[2] http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg01242.html

]]> by: Fredrik http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-144 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:50:47 +0000 http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-144 <p>That's not how xml works, is it?</p> <p>What if you want to embed "foo" xml in an RSS feed? Or an XML document type that includes a "friend" tag? That's the problem namespaces solves and a MIME type will not help. It will only move the namespace declaration from the root element to a Content-Type header (provided it is available).</p> That’s not how xml works, is it?

What if you want to embed “foo” xml in an RSS feed? Or an XML document type that includes a “friend” tag? That’s the problem namespaces solves and a MIME type will not help. It will only move the namespace declaration from the root element to a Content-Type header (provided it is available).

]]> by: Mark Baker http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-143 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 02:24:57 +0000 http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-143 <p>"Would it be OK for Microsoft to define the meaning of the word “friend?”"</p> <p>It would in the context of a separate media type, ala application/vnd.ms.foo+xml</p> “Would it be OK for Microsoft to define the meaning of the word “friend?””

It would in the context of a separate media type, ala application/vnd.ms.foo+xml

]]> by: Labnotes » Are microformats going against the grain http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-142 Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:53:52 +0000 http://lesscode.org/2005/07/30/complexity-bureaucracy-fairness/#comment-142 <p>[...] Robert Sayre responds to Tantek Çelik: I disagree. Namespaces can sometimes be a technical hassle, but I’ve noticed that people who rail against them are usually squatting on a set of short strings. Would it be OK for Microsoft to define the meaning of the word “friend?” [...]</p> […] Robert Sayre responds to Tantek Çelik: I disagree. Namespaces can sometimes be a technical hassle, but I’ve noticed that people who rail against them are usually squatting on a set of short strings. Would it be OK for Microsoft to define the meaning of the word “friend?” […]

]]>