[uf-discuss] Citation format straw proposal on the wiki
michael.mccracken at gmail.com
Wed Mar 29 11:44:27 PST 2006
Yeah, this is getting very similar, and I certainly don't have any
huge problems with the differences between our versions. A couple
- I'm still not convinced about [type] as a class, although it'd be
useful to have that data in there somewhere, it seems like it has the
potential to create a lot of classes (aren't class names shared across
all microformats?) and it also doesn't line up with how citations are
used on the web now, eg. you don't say " Book: "Linkers & Loaders",
John R. Levine, 2000" , you say " "Linkers & Loaders", John R.
- why use <x class="creators"><hcards></x> instead of just the list of
hcards with no containing element? what is requiring that element
- pages is probably not required for a minimal valid citation
microformat - consider citing a web page or personal communication...
On 3/29/06, Alf Eaton <lists at hubmed.org> wrote:
> OK, so a minimal microformat for a citation could look like this:
> <x class="citation [type]">
> <x class="title">Item title</x>
> <x class="creators"><hcards></x>
> <x class="container citation [type]"><hcitation for the container></x>
> <x class="pages">n-n</x> [and anything else specific to this
> particular type of citation]
> I think that's essentially very similar to Mike's version too.
> On 29 Mar 2006, at 14:20, Breton Slivka wrote:
> > 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 seperately.
> > 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):
> >> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC
> >> "-//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
> > _______________________________________________
> > microformats-discuss mailing list
> > microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
More information about the microformats-discuss