m (Reverted edit of 1143304322, changed back to last version by RyanKing) |
Current revision (00:17, 31 March 2013) (view source) (entry-title, see also) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions not shown.) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | <entry-title> Reuse </entry-title> | |
| - | + | One of several microformats [[principles]]. | |
| + | |||
| + | microformats [[reuse]] building blocks from widely adopted standards: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://tantek.com/presentations/20040928sdforumws/semantic-xhtml.html semantic], [http://tantek.com/presentations/2005/03/elementsofxhtml meaningful (X)HTML], i.e. [[POSH]]. See [[SemanticXHTMLDesignPrinciples]] for more details. | ||
| + | * existing microformats | ||
| + | ** as a whole, e.g. use [[hcard|hCard]] for representing people | ||
| + | ** in part, reusing particular semantic class names, following [[naming-principles|microformats naming principles]] | ||
| + | * well established schemas from interoperable RFCs | ||
| + | |||
| + | In general "doing what already works" (i.e. re-use) is greatly valued over "changing everything and starting from scratch" (i.e. re-invention). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thus the burden of proof is always on those who wish to change or modify what already "works" to a great extent today. One clear instance of this is microformats' re-use of existing implied schemas (based on research of real world [[examples]]) and looking at existing widely interoperable standards as a basis for vocabulary as noted above, rather than inventing new idealistic a priori schemas or inventing new terminology for concepts already named in existing formats. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == see also == | ||
| + | * [[principles]] | ||
| + | * [[process]] | ||
Current revision
One of several microformats principles.
microformats reuse building blocks from widely adopted standards:
- semantic, meaningful (X)HTML, i.e. POSH. See SemanticXHTMLDesignPrinciples for more details.
- existing microformats
- as a whole, e.g. use hCard for representing people
- in part, reusing particular semantic class names, following microformats naming principles
- well established schemas from interoperable RFCs
In general "doing what already works" (i.e. re-use) is greatly valued over "changing everything and starting from scratch" (i.e. re-invention).
Thus the burden of proof is always on those who wish to change or modify what already "works" to a great extent today. One clear instance of this is microformats' re-use of existing implied schemas (based on research of real world examples) and looking at existing widely interoperable standards as a basis for vocabulary as noted above, rather than inventing new idealistic a priori schemas or inventing new terminology for concepts already named in existing formats.