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

Michael Leikam leikam at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 7 09:08:00 PDT 2006


Thanks for your feedback and comments.

I think I hadn't fully appreciated the declarative nature
of the format, probably because I'd been using it within a
browser environment that already supports javascript and
the DOM API.  The steamroller was at hand and I know how to
(mis-)use it.

Still, I think Ryan nailed it when he said[1] regarding the
That's exactly what it is– a kludge.

However, I don't think it semantic abuse of the object
element, nor  
do I believe we have any better options at this point.
However, if  
you think of a better approach, then that'd be great.

The good reasons for not supporting a DOM-based approach,
which you were all kind enough to spell out for me, still
don't lend much weight in my eyes to the include-pattern


[1] http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-June/004310.html

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list