mfo-brainstorming

From Microformats Wiki
Revision as of 09:05, 7 March 2008 by TobyInk (talk | contribs) ()
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)
  • This will not work. How does a parser know whether or not they have encountered the root element of an unrecognised profile? How can they determine between a microformat root class and a POSH or presentational class? They would have to download every profile listed, and pray that they're in a parseable format such as XDMP or RDF.

Related pages

mfo-examples