[uf-dev] Microformats parsing, in general

[Derrick Lyndon Pallas]

Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 11:06 -0700, Tantek Çelik
> wrote:
>   
>> 2. add a new class name to indicate a encapsulation scope (e.g. "mfo") when
>> embedding
>>  - = one new class name, only in cases where nesting occurs.
>>     
> On the other hand, I find #2 appealing and I'm inclined to put
> effort into it. I think that authors are willing to jump thru
> a certain number of hoops if that's what it takes to get the
> tools to do what they want, and they'll likely find the mfo
> burden acceptable.
>   

For what it's worth, this issue comes up about every six months and the 
solution has always been that #1 is the best solution in the short term 
because it causes the least problems for authors.

Personally --- being someone that's written a parser and uses it on a 
daily basis --- I am unwilling to take on the burden of knowing all 
future formats and sub-properties of existing formats. I am very 
interested in pursing #2, just as I was six months ago.

Perhaps the best course of action is to work toward codifying "mfo" as a 
pattern and Best Practice (but not a Requirement) in the short term so 
that it is able to gain any adoption it might be due in the long term. 
If it doesn't gain any adoption, then it is probably a non-issue anyway 
but at least it's not a required pattern. That should both stifle the 
issue six months from now and make current authors and parsers happy. 
Respectfully (and still lurking) ~Derrick