mfo-brainstorming: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
ScottReynen (talk | contribs) (Created) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 20:46, 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