Difference between revisions of "microformats-easier-than-xml"

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(first draft)
 
(Cleaner grammar)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<h1> microformats easier than xml </h1>
+
= microformats easier than xml =
  
 
(This article is a stub, feel free to expand upon it)
 
(This article is a stub, feel free to expand upon it)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
From Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau:
 
From Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau:
  
* As a spec writer, you don't have to come up with wholly [[plain-old-xml-considered-harmful|new XML]] or XML+RDF dialects
+
* As a spec writer, you don't have to come up with wholly [[plain-old-xml-considered-harmful|new XML]] or XML+RDF dialects.
* As an author, you don't have to learn about how to deal with [[namespaces-considered-harmful|XML namespaces]] and, generally, embedding other XML into XHTML
+
* As an author, you don't have to learn about how to deal with [[namespaces-considered-harmful|XML namespaces]] and, generally, embedding other XML into XHTML.
* Even more importantly, you don't have to deal with the massive amount of quirks wrt/ handling XML namespaces in browsers.
+
* Even more importantly, you don't have to deal with the numerous quirks in XML namespace support in browsers.
  
 
All you have to do is learn to use a few more [[semantic-class-names|class names]], which virtually every browser already supports anyway, due to their extensive use in CSS.
 
All you have to do is learn to use a few more [[semantic-class-names|class names]], which virtually every browser already supports anyway, due to their extensive use in CSS.
  
And *because* you're just using HTML/XHTML classes, you can already benefit from the way a browser treats them. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. A namespaced implemented would require you to come up with styling for every single element, but using (X)HTML classes lets you take advantage of the existing styling of (X)HTML elements.
+
And because you're just using HTML/XHTML classes, you can already benefit from the way a browser treats them. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Namespaced elements would require you to come up with styling for every single element, but using (X)HTML classes lets you take advantage of the existing styling of (X)HTML elements.
  
 
== See Also ==
 
== See Also ==

Latest revision as of 19:56, 29 August 2006

microformats easier than xml

(This article is a stub, feel free to expand upon it)

From Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau:

  • As a spec writer, you don't have to come up with wholly new XML or XML+RDF dialects.
  • As an author, you don't have to learn about how to deal with XML namespaces and, generally, embedding other XML into XHTML.
  • Even more importantly, you don't have to deal with the numerous quirks in XML namespace support in browsers.

All you have to do is learn to use a few more class names, which virtually every browser already supports anyway, due to their extensive use in CSS.

And because you're just using HTML/XHTML classes, you can already benefit from the way a browser treats them. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Namespaced elements would require you to come up with styling for every single element, but using (X)HTML classes lets you take advantage of the existing styling of (X)HTML elements.

See Also