[uf-discuss] proposed title-design-pattern is not backwards compatible, too big of a change

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Sun Apr 29 07:49:22 PDT 2007

On 4/29/07 4:43 AM, "Jeremy Keith" <jeremy at adactio.com> wrote:

> So the problem becomes one of damage control.

Certainly *any* proposal can be improved by limiting/reducing the potential
damage it does.

> Tantek's proposed damage limitation is to open up the abbr-design-
> pattern to just one other element.

With the possible examples of <span>, or <b>.

> James and I want to open up the pattern to any element but limit the
> damage by restricting the number of classes the pattern applies to.

With the class names (quoting from earlier in your message)
 dtstart, dtend, duration, rdate, rrule (from hCalendar).
 type (sub property), latitude, longitude (from hCard).

But I *think* what you really mean (or intended) is class names for the
following microformat property types:
 * dates
 * datetimes
 * numerical values (e.g. coordinates)
 * enumerated English words

which would also include for example:
 bday (from hCard)
 dtreviewed, rating, version, type (from hReview)

and any other microformat properties that may be developed of those types.

> But if the consensus is that Tantek's proposed damage limitation
> makes the most sense, I will quite happily go along with that.

This isn't an either or situation - both limitations could be applied to the
title-design-pattern proposal to further minimize the damage it might do.

Again, I'm not saying I agree nor support this proposal, I'm only trying to
improve what is being considered.


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list