[uf-discuss] proposal: a.include
ryan at technorati.com
Mon Jul 10 17:15:26 PDT 2006
On Jul 9, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> Ryan wrote:
>> (sidenote: I don't think the @type should be required after this
> I'm not sure about that. OT1H the addition of the "type" attribute
> tries to
> communicate that the "include" is "just" HTML. OTOH the "text/
> html" type is
> for a whole document, not just a fragment so it might not be
> correct to use
> "text/html" for the include-pattern.
My thought: specifying the mime-type on a local IDREF violates the
DRY principle. A local IDREF refers to the existing document so any
mime-type applied to that reference will be:
2. wrong, or
In other words if the mimetype is wrong, the @type attribute is
worthless, if it's correct, it doesn't tell us anything we don't
already know. The best we can hope for is a non standard mimetype
which hasn't been used anywhere before.
I still vote for not requiring it.
More information about the microformats-discuss