[uf-discuss] Q&

Paul Kinlan paul.kinlan at gmail.com
Fri Dec 15 01:13:06 PST 2006

>>Paul, what do think?

I personally think that the qa is a good idea,  I belive that you
would be easily able to seperate questions and answers out and you
will be able to start infering meaning from the text inside the qa
section, however like with all microformats it is useless unless
people use it (and if it is only you and me then there is little point
in having a microformat because only ourselves will be publishing and
consuming our own data). I don't belive at the moment that people will
be bothered with microformats unless the tools are there that create
them without people knowing about them, but obviously when you get to
that level of integration I don't think microformats will be needed at

However on a lighter note, as far as I am aware the dl, dt suffice
(although it looks like dt is not ment for questions) I don't think
classes are needed to distinguish questions and answers, and if this
can start to get used by people I have lots of ideas for it.


On 14/12/06, Ciaran McNulty <mail at ciaranmcnulty.com> wrote:
> On 12/14/06, Taylor Cowan <taylor_cowan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This might break when there are multiple answers, not sure if one to many dt 2 dd is ok, but a surrounding <di> would help.
> One-to-many DT/DD is allowed, as are many-to-many.
> <dl>
>  <dt>A term</dt>
>  <dt>Another term</dt>
>  <dd>A definition</dd>
>  <dd>Another definition</dd>
> </dl>
> It's a DT that follows a DD that 'starts' a new block, if that makes sense?
> -Ciaran McNulty
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list