[uf-discuss] Custom Fields Microformat?
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Sat Nov 25 18:34:30 PST 2006
DL/DT/DD in XHTML can already be used to semantically represent property
value sets and XOXO uses them for this purposes. Hence XOXO already solves
this problem by reusing semantic XHTML.
On 11/25/06 5:04 PM, "Aaron Gustafson" <aaron at easy-designs.net> wrote:
> Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
>> Creating 80%-or-more overlapping formats is evil. XOXO can
>> be made to do anything - and this most especially. So you
>> have to change the output code a tad more to apply it than you do for
>> some other formats
>> - what does that hurt? The resulting code is much better structured
>> -- Singpolyma
> I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with XOXO.
> I have re-read the specs based on your comment, looking for a connection, but
> maybe I'm missing something. Can you explain why you think a property-value
> grouping microformat would overlap with XOXO? It's not really an outline? I
> realize some instances make use of a list-based construct, but it could be
> natural language as well. Furthermore, it seems to me that your argument would
> nix any microformat that utilizes an (X)HTML list construct, which I think is
> extreme. And if someone thinks a property-value list is an appropriate XOXO,
> there's no reason they couldn't combine the two. I just see property-value
> filling a particular gap in terms of microformat extensibility, particularly
> for something like hProduct.
> IMHO property-value doesn't appear to overlap 80%, or even 30%, with XOXO.
> Perhaps you could explain your resoning in a bit more detail?
> Aaron Gustafson
> Easy! Designs, LLC
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss