La Grange voit rouge
A few days ago, a small of group of people released a proposal called XFN. Describe it however you want, here is my word on it : XFN is a super-simple solution for a super-simple problem that does not deserve two years of international standardization; "I want to establish some kind of relationship between my blog and this one listed in my blogroll". It is NOT meant to solve ALL kinds of relationships, it is NOT meant to be the mother-of-all-relationship-languages, it's not that and we KNOW it. If you really try to see it as it is, it is a good proposal and we don't need more. If you don't, well, just try to think that a small group of people made public something they like. You like it, you use it; you don't like it, you don't use it. Insults are not needed.
On a more global note, I do believe that computer languages and markup languages share an important characteristic with spoken languages : whatever says the Academy responsible for the present and future of a given language and its "purity", that language is the fact of its speakers. What the speakers want the language to be and become, it is and becomes. Our Web Academies should keep that in mind more often than they currently do.
And so it goes with HTML. And XHTML.
Avec FOAF, vous n'avez qu'un seul fichier à gérer, vous pouvez étendre les concepts en utilsant des vocabulaires complets hérités d'autres environnement, c'est souple et simple.
Yeah. Could be. But to understand that sentence, even if you're a native french speaker, you don't need to a "bad geek", Karl... You need to be Karl. And that is why XFN is better than FOAF.