[uf-discuss] hCard implementation check please; plus use of common attribute

[Ryan King]

On Jun 2, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> In message <9195CDA6-131E-4283-B9D3-0D11880B7E33 at technorati.com>, Ryan
> King <ryan at technorati.com> writes
>>>> http://microformats.org/wiki/include-pattern
>>>
>>> Thank you. I'm troubled by the (ab)use of the "object" tag - what
>>> object
>>> is being embedded, in such cases?
>>
>> The referenced node.
>
> But it's not being embedded, is it? It's merely referenced.

In terms of markup, those are one-in-the-same. User-agents can choose  
to embed the resource that's referenced.

>>> I'm also troubled by the exhortation:
>>>
>>>         To avoid unsightly messes in Safari, you should include the
>>>         following style rule in a style sheet for the page:
>>>
>>>         object.include { width:0; height:0 }
>>
>> Safari doesn't handle object elements correctly.
>
> what would be "correct"?

Well, for one, it could give it a width other than 200px (for images  
it'd be nice to use intrinsic size), for one.

>>> and the effect on the page of not including something similar, when
>>> viewed using FireFox 1.5 (which has vast areas of white psace0 or  
>>> ie6
>>> (which has markers not unlike those for missing images) - see:
>>>
>>>         http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/club/executiveVCARD.htm
>>>
>>> and compare with the original:
>>>
>>>         http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/club/executive.htm
>>
>> Right, you should certainly apply the above styling to all browsers,
>> as they each have their own difficulties with object elements.
>
> And what about agents with no CSS capability? The method smacks of  
> being
> a kludge.

That's exactly what it is– a kludge.

However, I don't think it semantic abuse of the object element, nor  
do I believe we have any better options at this point. However, if  
you think of a better approach, then that'd be great.

thanks,
ryan