[uf-discuss] hResume Check Please

Mon Jul 17 14:35:21 PDT 2006

On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Ben Ward wrote:
> ...
>
> A few frustrations/issues:
>
> First up, the best-practice method of containing hCard within an  
> ADDRESS element appears hard to implement, given the inline nature  
> of ADDRESS. In my case, I tried to have [div#benmichaelward] (line  
> 100) as an ADDRESS, but the block-level children triggers quirks  
> mode in browsers and causes the block level content (h1, ul, dl) to  
> become siblings in the DOM, not children, which in turn breaks  
> stlyling.

Yeah, <address /> is difficult. I hate to abandon it entirely, but  
its too tough to use. Steve already pointed out that this is now  
optional in hResume.

> Second, I find the mark-up required for skills - using rel=tag - to  
> be rather laborious to author.

I agree, it is a bit verbose.

> I appreciate the value of using tags, pointing multiple skill sets  
> to the same place, but there is a lot of typing involved, not to  
> mention the effort of hunting out the URLs. I honestly don't know  
> if there's a better way though, since everything I keep half- 
> thinking of as I type this doesn't actually help very much (briefly  
> the idea of a base URL for tags, but that doesn't actually get  
> around much of the labour problem).
>
> Anyway, I felt that worth flagging up in case anyone was sitting on  
> an ingenious idea of a tag shorthand and needed motivation to post it.

I'm open to suggestions, but I think rel-tag is the best thing we  
have to work with.

> The last thing regards experience/education hevents that are still  
> ongoing (“2002-present”). Is it safe to assume, or should it  
> perhaps be specified in hResume itself, that ‘present’ is implied  
> by the absence of a dtend field?

Yes.

> Mark-up pedantry greatly appreciated.

<pedant-mode>

Your use of definition lists seems a bit suspect. I understand the  
contact info bit, but the skills section may be better as nested  
ordered lists (and xoxo?).

> <!DOCTYPE html>

Wouldn't you prefer a more specific doctype?

And, I suggest running it through the validator.

</>

-ryan