[uf-discuss] extending HTML & extending semantics

Mike Schinkel mikeschinkel at gmail.com
Wed Dec 13 13:39:19 PST 2006

Scott Reynen wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2006, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> > Maybe prefixes aren't the
> > answer, but I haven't heard an alternate presented.
> You're presenting an alternative right here:
> > What about adding additional standard attributes to all elements.  
> > Would it be helpful?

Even though I agree they are needed, I still don't see how that will solve a
namespace clash.

> This is a question WHATWG needs to answer, preferably 
> without referencing microformats.  We're using the same 
> HTML as everyone else.

Well, I made exactly that proposal saying that one of the things that made
Microformats difficult to implement was the lack of available attributes,
and it got shot down immediately by Ian Hickson:

> > Mike Schinkel wrote:
> > but I know from participating on the Microformat list that one of the 
> > biggest problems if lack of available attributes.
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> That certainly isn't what I've heard from the Microformats community.


> > > > Mike Schinkel wrote:
> > > > This is a this issue I'm bringing up is new (from me) but what about

> > > > allowing several more attributes to be added to the standard 
> > > > attribute list for all elements?  For example, if would be really 
> > > > nice if attributes like abbr, href, name, rel, rev, scope, size, 
> > > > src, type, and value were available on ALL elements. (Please, pretty

> > > > please... :)
> > > Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > Could you elaborate on what each one of these attributes would mean?
> > Mike Schinkel wrote: 
> I don't have specifics
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> Then it is not clear that they are required.

HOWEVER, if I could get some help over on the WHATWG list to convince Ian
that they ARE REQUIRED, then this issue would be improved.

> Assuming you mean disambiguation beyond the "different names 
> for different formats in the same document" solution profile 
> URIs offer, the answer is: We can't; WHATWG can.

We are discussing two things: 1.) disambiguation mechanism and 2.) the
general need for more available attributes to apply semantic markup.
I disagree with this assertion that #2 solves #1.  

However, I am realizing that the diffference in philosophy is going to keep
me from getting anywhere on issue #1 within the microformat community, so
I'm going to ponder alternate solutions.

> I think it was a mistake to move this discussion from WHATWG 
> to here, as it's a WHATWG issue (extending HTML for 
> semantics) and not a microformats issue (extending semantics 
> with HTML).

The reason for moving it here is to get people to help me convince Ian that
it is needed!
So, will you please help convince Ian, since you also clearly see the need?

-Mike Schinkel

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list