[uf-discuss] Re: DOM scripting as an alternative to include-pattern?

Michael Leikam leikam at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 5 15:48:18 PDT 2006

--- Ryan King <ryan at technorati.com> wrote:

> > To me include-patterns seem like a subset of DOM and
> both
> > seem less to do with the data format itself than the
> > inherently procedural transformation from one format to
> > another.  What is the difference between defining a
> data
> > format and defining what people do with that data
> format
> > (i.e., what that data format is used for)?
> The difference is this: with the current <object>-based
> include  
> pattern, *I*, the writer of the consuming agent get to
> decide how its  
> implemented� if we include document scripting as a
> solution to the  
> include pattern, then I have to run your code on my
> server, and  
> that's just not reasonable.
> -ryan

Good point.  I hadn't given enough thought to the burden it
would put on consuming agents.  Even though I think it's
far more important to make microformats easy for content
producers/authors v.s. easy for consumers/parsers; the
consumers, search engines and syndication are vital in
making this whole effort worthwhile.  What's the point of
marking up my contact information if agents can't
aggregate, republish, reformat and use it?


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list