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

Martin McEvoy martin at weborganics.co.uk
Fri May 25 02:46:08 PDT 2007

On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 13:38 -0500, Chris Griego wrote:
> I absolutely agree with Brian's sentiment here that the optional
> container class names that exist today have very different semantics.
> That's why I maintained them in my proposed option[1] while also
> trying to avoid the need for any form of namespacing or notation, dot
> or otherwise, in the class attribute.
> Replacing the existing container class names are a non-problem, but I
> recognize that sparse grouping is a problem, which is why I see hSet's
> role more as an alternative to the include-pattern, which is a useful
> solution (that uses the ID attribute) in many situations, but clunky
> at best when dealing with sparse grouping. Case in point is that
> Martin's rev-based option is reinvention of the include-pattern with
> all of the same clunkiness.
> [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/grouping-brainstorming#Option_7:_id-class_grouping

Chris please explain why rev="has-part" is in any way like the include
pattern?, there certainly isn't any "clunkiness" behind a single
proposed mf that may serve the same purpose as any other more complex

Here are a few references to how I came to my conclusion


Anyway comments are welcome, have fun ;)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2171 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/attachments/20070525/af1e90a8/smime.bin

More information about the microformats-new mailing list