[uf-new] Revisiting grouping problem solution proposal: hset

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Tue May 22 12:07:54 PDT 2007

On 5/22/07 9:49 AM, "Brian Suda" <brian.suda at gmail.com> wrote:

> i'm sorry, i'm completely lost now. Are we trying to get a solution to
> a non-problem? did we not discuss the whole namespacing '.'
> (dot-notation) as a bad idea?
> has there ever been a time that we have NEEDED a set container in an
> existing microformat? and any further development of new microformats
> would have container built into them when they are being designed.
> i feel this conversation is attempting to create a solution to
> something that isn't a problem.
> Can we take a set back from trying to produce mark-up and describe the
> exact use-case and need for this? i for one do NOT see a need for any
> sort of SET format, HTML, XOXO and individual microformats convey all
> the needed semantics already.
> -brian

Agreed with all of Brian's points.  I've been quietly watching this thread
hoping for simplification but it doesn't seem to be happening.

Use of "." or any other sort of semantic separator in class names is a bad
idea for *numerous* reasons (introducing hierarchy where we there isn't any
currently, using a character that is requires escaping when writing CSS
rules etc.)

I too am convinced that we can do simple sets through aggregation.  Let's
start with that and iterate.

You don't need the all-inclusive format in the first version.  In fact, you
should avoid that.  Start with something *as simple as possible*,  perhaps
even *simpler* than you think possible.  Classes with hierarchy and special
characters (not to mention hiding data in the class attribute) are so far
beyond simple it is ridiculous.



More information about the microformats-new mailing list