[microformats-discuss] funness -> validator

Lucas Gonze lucas.gonze at gmail.com
Tue Aug 16 13:04:39 PDT 2005

On 8/16/05, Tantek Çelik <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> On 8/16/05 11:59 AM, "Dr. Ernie Prabhakar" <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
> > On Aug 16, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
> >> One thing I'm finding as I go along is that a validator would be
> >> intensely useful, because you can (and have to) get pretty creative,
> >> and it's hard to be sure that the results are still parseable.
> >
> > That's something I wondered about.  Is there a rigorous grammar for
> > what is and is not a valid microformat, such that someone -could-
> > write a validator?
> The short answer is no, we are still figuring it out.

At the same time, the rules don't seem to have holes which would make
for unparseable but legal h*, so it should be possible to write
validators for the individual microformats, if not for arbitrary XMDP.

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list