[uf-discuss] need for mfo / encapsulation / forward-compatible
parsing (was re: changes...)
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Thu Feb 7 12:04:50 PST 2008
On 2/7/08 10:08 AM, "Manu Sporny" <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> It invalidates the need for "mfo" in hcard, doesn't it?
> If it were applied to the rest of Microformats, it would invalidate the
> need for "mfo" entirely.
This is one of the reasons "mfo" has not progressed much further than the
examples given in mfo-examples - it hasn't been necessary in practice.
However, mfo may be needed for current parsers to be able to properly
encapsulate new microformats that come along (this is often referred to as
forward-compatible parsing), in the same way that they can explicitly do so
with the limited set of existing microformats.
As this topic is more related to parsing, I think the -dev list (on the To
line) may be the more appropriate place to discuss it, while hopefully
sympathetically taking into consideration the additional authoring
cost/requirement of adding "mfo" (or whatever we come up with) as an
additional class name to new compound microformats' root elements, e.g.
More information about the microformats-discuss