[uf-discuss] Citation format straw proposal on the wiki

Breton Slivka zen at zenpsycho.com
Wed Mar 29 11:20:58 PST 2006

True, but a mechanism for this sort of thing already exists for  
microformats in XMDP, and in a somewhat more flexiible form, in that  
one does not need a monolithic profile for all the modules involved,  
one can have a seperate profile for each module and link to each  

The basic thrust of this is to follow the microformat principal of  
solving the simple problem first. Out of all these specific domains  
exists a definite "simplest problem". The only dispute that I see is  
that the simplest problem doesn't solve all the domain specific  
problems. You wouldn't expect it to! So you make additional  
microformats to solve the domain specific issues. Thus the "micro" in  
microformats, as I understand it.

On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Alf Eaton wrote:

> On 29 Mar 2006, at 14:02, Breton Slivka wrote:
>> If we are for the moment to entertain the idea of modularization,  
>> couldn't type then be simply inferred by which module(s) in use?  
>> If you go with a nesting microformat model for that, type is  
>> encapsulated entirely in the container class of specific modules,  
>> and the modules which are in use determine behavior, much the same  
>> as embedded svg/mathml does today, or a more direct comparison in  
>> the modularization of xhtml.
> If you embed MathML and SVG in XHTML you still have to use the  
> right DOCTYPE, so that the validator knows which modules are  
> allowed (though admittedly you don't necessarily need the precise  
> DOCTYPE just for displaying/interpreting the document):
>     "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1 plus MathML 2.0 plus SVG 1.1//EN"
>     "http://www.w3.org/2002/04/xhtml-math-svg/xhtml-math-svg.dtd">
> alf.
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list