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 <bjonkman at sobac.com> wrote: > 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 Çelik <microformats-discuss at microformats.org> said > about "Re: [uf-discuss] Idea: beginners/ge" on 14 Oct 2006 at 12:25 >> > 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 like the suggestions of opening up microformats-dev as well. > > > > Anybody else on the list have thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Tantek > > > _______________________________________________ > microformats-discuss mailing list > microformats-discuss at microformats.org > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > -- - Stephen Paul Weber, Amateur Writer <http://www.awriterz.org> MSN/GTalk/Jabber: singpolyma at gmail.com ICQ/AIM: 103332966 NSA: stephen4 at northstar-academy.org BLOG: http://singpolyma-tech.blogspot.com/