validating microformats (was Re: [uf-discuss] Google Gdata new
syndication protocol!)
Mark Pilgrim
pilgrim at gmail.com
Fri Apr 21 09:20:15 PDT 2006
On 4/21/06, Benjamin Carlyle <benjamincarlyle at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > http://norman.walsh.name/2006/04/13/validatingMicroformats
>
> Microformat validation seems like a hard problem to me, or at least a
It's only a hard problem if you insist on using inappropriate
technology to solve it. Norm is a smart guy, but he's completely on
the wrong track thinking about how to build a useful validator for
microformats. Perhaps he's hung up on the word "validator". Perhaps
the word "linter" would be more accurate (although no end users would
understand what it means).
> 1) Microformats permit any underlying html structure to be used, so
> there is nothing to validate there that the w3c validator doesn't
> already do.
Wrong. See http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-dev/2006-April/000083.html
> 2) Microformats allow arbitrary extension though the use of custom html
> classes provided by the document author. Unknown classes are still
> valid, so they can't be declared as errors.
> 3) The only validation that is possible is to ensure all data that must
> be present in a particular microformat is present.
Wrong. See http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-dev/2006-April/000083.html
> So, what do we mean by microformat validation? I think x2v+human and
> hAtom2Atom.xsl+human is the best we can hope for.
I've seen a lot of this attitude, here and on uf-dev, and it is
utterly wrong. (No offense to x2v. It's a great tool, but it's not a
validator, nor is it a good basis for building a validator.) Perhaps
the only way to convince you that a microformats validator would be
useful is to build the validator I'm imagining and show you.
--
Cheers,
-Mark
More information about the microformats-discuss
mailing list