[uf-discuss] Tentative proposal: Sub-microformats to streamline common microformat patterns for simple data

Andy Mabbett andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Fri Jan 4 03:02:33 PST 2008

In message <C3A2D4C8.1302%ryan at ryancannon.com>, Ryan Cannon
<ryan at ryancannon.com> writes

>Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> We could simply declare, in the manner of implied-n-optimisation, that
>> an hCard with no children ... defaults to the equivalent of the full mark-up
>> as used above.
>I wrote about this more than a year ago[1] and created some wiki pages with
>  * http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-implied
>  * http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-implied-examples
>  * http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-implied-brainstorming

So you did - I even replied on -brainstorming. (I wish I could remember
what happened to my memory!)

As explained in my original post in this thread, I now think that the
specific suggestion to use "vcard-with-no-children" is unworkable.

>The largest problem we have to deal with is one Brian Suda's criticism of
>the idea

Aside from Brian's issues with your specific example, his key comment
seemed to be:

        Either #1 you are trying to save bytes (which IMHO is not a good
        reason) or #2 you are trying to make publishing easier... so if
        we are going to work under the assumption of #2 lets, try to
        avoid the whole "HTML Bloat" discussion.

While I think bloat *is* an issue (more specifically, a disincentive to
publishers to use microformats), I thinks that the two go hand in hand,
and that this proposal does address his latter point, of ease of

Andy Mabbett

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list