[uf-discuss] hCalendar for events in tables (real world examples)

Scott Reynen scott at randomchaos.com
Fri Jun 2 20:05:17 PDT 2006

On Jun 2, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

>> It seems clear to me that, since its talking about markup that  
>> its  for
>> authors.
> You asked me to let you know if they "lack clarity in any way"; not
> whether they were clear to you.

Yeah, what's up with asking if it's clear and then arguing with the  
response?  And you really think the section that starts with "when  
parsing" is clearly for authors?  Is this opposite day or something?

On Jun 2, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

>>> I'm troubled by the (ab)use of the "object" tag - what
>>> object is being embedded, in such cases?
>> The referenced node.
> But it's not being embedded, is it? It's merely referenced.

The object tag isn't itself an object.  It's a reference to an  
object, just like the img tag is a reference to an image, by URI.   
The user agent is supposed to do the inclusion if it understands the  
referenced object, and ignore it if it doesn't.  That's all in the  
HTML spec.  The only thing microformats seem to be adding is the  
stipulation that objects referencing fragment URLs should only  
include the specific node the fragment identifies, and not the entire  
document as Safari does.  I don't see that in the HTML spec.

>> Safari doesn't handle object elements correctly.
> what would be "correct"?

The spec says correct behavior is including the referenced object if  
it's understood, and ignoring it if it's not.  Most browsers ignore  
what Safari includes, but on my reading, that doesn't make Safari's  
behavior incorrect.  Is there something else, or is it just that  
Safari's inclusion is a visual mess?

>> Right, you should certainly apply the above styling to all browsers,
>> as they each have their own difficulties with object elements.
> And what about agents with no CSS capability?

You should be able to use the height and width attributes for such  
user agents.

> The method smacks of being a kludge.

Inclusion seems to be following the intent of the object tag, but it  
doesn't seem like any browsers really implement the object tag well.   
We can't change what's valid XHTML, so the alternatives seem to be  
object tags or nothing.  And nothing is a perfectly viable option.   
Inclusion is not a requirement, just an option.


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list