mfo-brainstorming: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
ScottReynen (talk | contribs) (Created) |
AndyMabbett (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
-- [[User:ScottReynen|ScottReynen]] | -- [[User:ScottReynen|ScottReynen]] | ||
==Issues== | |||
*People who publish using blogs, CMSs, Wikis etc. (including this wiki!) have no ability to add or change profile URIs in header tags. [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]] 14:28, 17 Jun 2007 (PDT) | |||
==Related pages== | ==Related pages== | ||
[[mfo-examples]] | [[mfo-examples]] | ||
Revision as of 21:28, 17 June 2007
Microformat Opacity/Object/Opaque Brainstorming
Can increased use of profile URIs solve this problem?
profile-uris are already recommended. Here's a proposal to make them required whenever opacity rules come up:
- Whenever one microformat is used within another, the interior microformat's profile URI MUST be used.
- Parsers must disregard all content within the root element identified in an unrecognized profile.
While not as flexible as an additional class name (e.g. class="mfo"), I like that profile URIs don't require publishers to think about parsing behavior.
-- ScottReynen
Issues
- People who publish using blogs, CMSs, Wikis etc. (including this wiki!) have no ability to add or change profile URIs in header tags. Andy Mabbett 14:28, 17 Jun 2007 (PDT)