[uf-discuss] Re: Simplifying hierarchy in hCard

[Chris Messina]

In terms of faqqing it, please also add a link to the Optimizations section(s).

On 3/29/06, Ryan King <ryan at technorati.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Chris Messina wrote:
> > Actually, I've wondered this myself and think that people will
> > actually do this regardless...
> >
> > So while I take your point Tantek, I think allowing this actually
> > makes sense. Parsers should treat combined microformats and objects as
> > non-nested objects... basically the equivalent behavior of shorthand
> > CSS styles:
> >
> > background-color: #fff;
> > background-image: url(image.gif);
> > background-repeat: no-repeat;
> >
> > and
> >
> > background: url(image.gif) no-repeat #fff;
>
> Bad comparison: there is no nesting in CSS declarations and the
> vocabulary is centrally controlled (unlike semantics in HTML class,
> rel and other attributes).
>
> > Therefore, using:
> >
> > <span class="author vcard fn">My Name</span>
> >
> > would be the equivalent of
> >
> > <span class="author vcard"><span class="fn">My Name</span></span>
> >
> > ...except that it wouldn't be nestable.
> >
> > This saves a bunch of code and writing and makes for a more elegant
> > solution, IMO.
>
> The problem with this is that it throws out the advantages that
> unique root class names give us, namely, context. If we flatten the
> hierarchy, we greatly constrain our vocabulary, which we have enough
> trouble managing, as is.
>
> -ryan
>
> PS- we really need to FAQ this, it seems to come up once a month.
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>