issues

From Microformats Wiki
Revision as of 16:48, 4 January 2007 by DrErnie (talk | contribs) (→‎Issues: Governance)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Microformat Issues

These are externally raised issues about microformats in general (these issues MUST apply to more than one microformat, which MUST be explicitly listed, otherwise the issue should be raised on the format specific issues page) with broadly varying degrees of merit. Thus some issues are REJECTED for a number of obvious reasons (but still documented here in case they are re-raised), and others contain longer discussions. Some issues may be ACCEPTED and perhaps cause changes or improved explanations in the spec. Submitted issues may (and probably will) be edited and rewritten for better terseness, clarity, calmness, rationality, and as neutral a point of view as possible. Write your issues well. — Tantek

As this is a general microformats issues page, please only note concrete real world issues. Theoretical issues will be deleted, as will any issues raised that do not contain documentation of specific real-world examples that use real-world microformats (not just brainstorms).

Format Specific Issues

Please raise format specific issues on the respective page:

Issues

IP Issues

  • 2006-12-08 raised by Andy Mabbett.
    1. As discussed in [1], the current position on the IP rights relating to microformats is unclear, or at least not clearly expressed. It seems to me that there should be an unambiguous statement of the current position, either for each individual format, or collectively, on a page to which people with concerns may be directed.
      • ACCEPTED. A clearer statement of both copyright and patents both in specific specs and in general would be a good thing. In general, the end result that our current copyright/patent statements seek is Creative Commons, W3C, and IETF compatibility in terms of both copyrights, and royalty free patent policies. I will work on this Tantek 11:58, 9 Dec 2006 (PST)

Governance Issues

  • 2007-01-04 raised by DrErnie
    1. As discussed in [2], there exist various concerns about the lack of clarity regarding governance of the list, wiki, and the specifications themselves. While agree that there does need to be some form of strong leadership to preserve the integrity of the community, I agree with Colin Barrett when he said:
"I think there should be bit more visible superstructure around just who is in this "cabal". It seems to me like the Editors/Authors of the various specs form the majority it of it, but perhaps that should be made a bit more apparent, and the "powers" of an editor (essentially, the ability to veto changes to the wiki, it seems) outlined a bit and some information about how to become an editor (AFIACT, make numerous, quality edits to the Wiki that the other editors approve of)."

New Issues

  • ...

Template

Please use this format (copy and paste this to the end of the list to add your issues):

  • open issue! YYYY-MM-DD raised by YOURNAME.
    1. Issue 1: Here is the first issue I have.
    2. Issue 2: Here is the second issue I have.

See also