[uf-discuss] extending HTML & extending semantics

[Elias Torres]

On 12/13/06, Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> and
>
> > > > > 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.

Are you going to do that pondering mostly inside your brain or are you
going to do it here or somewhere? I'm interested.

-Elias

>
> > 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
> http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
> http://www.welldesignedurls.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>