Comments on: Microformats and Structured Blogging are not competitors

by: Slouching towards Golgonooza » Blog Archive » Structured Blogging

Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:53:14 +0000

[…] In June 2006 Kimbro Staken, one of the original Broadband Mechanics who programmed the plug-ins, claimed that there would soon be a rebirth for structured blogging because PubSub had ceased operations, and their feud with Technorati had been a huge and confusing diversion for everyone who had been trying to push ideas about structured blogging forward. […]

by: Mandell Online » Blog Archive » Kimbro Staken on Structured Blogging

Sun, 02 Jul 2006 15:43:56 +0000

[…] Kimbro further clears up confusion around Structured Blogging and Microformats and declares a new beginning for the initiative. […]

by: Jason Kolb

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:33:58 +0000

We need more tools for consuming data before structured blogging can take off. Check out my post at http://jasonkolb.typepad.com/weblog/2006/06/this_is_not_an__1.html for an example.

by: What’s Driving Microformats? at The Progress Bar

Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:28:56 +0000

[…] Nice writeup about the differences between Structured Blogging and microformats here. It’s because the Structured Blogging plugins are a TOOL that makes it really easy to create the reviews. People aren’t using the tool because they want to publish structured data, even I don’t really use it for that reason, they use it because it makes writing reviews easier. […]

by: raju

Sat, 24 Jun 2006 10:31:30 +0000

I totally agree with Bob. The thing I liked about StructuredBlogging from the beginning was that it’s not about formats but value for the user. Only if the users can easily publish ANY FORMAT they need a majority of people will come to “feel” the advantages of structured in information.

We probably have millions of formats based on XML on this planet and microformats don’t offer any technology to embed those in feeds and web pages in a form that they can parsed by a machine and validated. The whole concept of Structured Blogging is very convincing and powerful. I don’t know who came with it but those people know what they were doing. I still feel that we have to improve the way we present Structurd Blogging to a greater public (the people and companies not blogging). But the project went off to a good start.

by: Bob Wyman

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:30:52 +0000

Kimbro, In your list of reasons for the “XML Format” you left out a few:
1. There are many XML encodings that have been defined by industry standards groups and it would be ridiculous to insist that all of them be re-defined into microformat equivelants. The “subnode” format that I defined as an alternative to XHTML markup makes it possible to use existing formats without having to redefine them all. I think that is a “good” thing.
2. The XHTML stuff is really hard to parse and manipulate.
3. XHTML markup does’t work in HTML and can’t leverage parsing code written for non-(X)HTML projects when standard XML is being used.
4. etc….

In any case, there never should have been any competition between microformats and structured blogging. Structured blogging is not about formats, it is about tools and about things you do. The formats are only low-level technology that users should never be exposed to and shouldn’t have any reason to care about. All users should care about is that *some* format exists.

I’m sorry that you “see the death of PubSub as a good thing”. We tried hard to stay in the background on Structured Blogging explicitly in order to attempt to avoid the kind of silly competition that has been going on. We paid Marc (and you) to build tools since we genuinely wanted the tools to be developed without having to embroil the issue in commercial battles. We intentionally left you folk with a tremendous amount of freedom to determine how those tools should be built. This was all done to keep Structured Blogging out of a PubSub vs Technorati battle… I wish that those who viewed themselves as our competitors could have found it in themselves to focus more on the needs of the community and less on their competitive advantage. We don’t need more formats (micro or otherwise) what we need is more tools in the hands of real users.

bob wyman

by: Marc’s Voice » Blog Archive » New birth for Structured Blogging?

Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:40:42 +0000

[…] Kimbro Staken makes many correct statements and declares a new beginning for StructuredBlogging.org - but before I just completely just take back everything I just said, let me point out some cold hard facts: […]

by: Raju Bitter » Blog Archive » Microformats and StructuredBlogging - there’s no competition!

Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:55:03 +0000

[...] An important point many people are missing. I constantly hear questions like “So should I use Microformats or is Structured Blogging better?”. Kimbro Staken, who did much of the programmming of the Structured Blogging code, has an excellent post on the situation of Structured Blogging in the face of the breakdown of PubSub. Phillipp Pearson shares my and Kimbro’s view on the situation of Structured Blogging: It’s the community which will power Structured Blogging independently of PubSub or any other company. If you’re comparing Microformats and Structured Blogging: There are so many more ideas and concepts around the Structured Blogging project like RedirectThis and OutputThis which are more than valuable for the blogosphere. It was a smart move of the Structured Blogging team to support Microformats. But there’s so much more in the Structured Blogging project than just formats and standards. It’s a good experience to see that so many people of the original Structured Blogging team stick to the project despite the problems PubSub is having. To all of the Structured Blogging team: We’ve had an awesome feedback to the technology you have been developing and working hard on. I’ll personally do all I can too continue the success of the Structured Blogging project. [...]