[uf-new] collection-design-pattern proposal
danny.ayers at gmail.com
Tue Apr 24 11:34:56 PDT 2007
On 24/04/07, Manu Sporny <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> Danny Ayers wrote:
> >> On Apr 22, 2007, at 10:12 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> >> > I propose that we use this collection-design-pattern mentioned
> >> > above for
> >> > specifying all collections due to the following advances over all
> >> > of the
> >> > other proposed methods:
> > Nice idea, but I believe it's redundant. HTML already has collections,
> > ordered and unordered.
> Yes, you are correct according to your definition of a collection. The
> problem I'm describing is a little deeper than that...
> Apologies, I wasn't clear enough when it came to defining what a
> collection was... here are the definitions:
> collection: a non-localized, unstructured grouping of items.
> list : a localized, structured grouping of items.
> A list is a subtype of a collection - the ontology would look something
> like this:
> + - grouping
> + - collection
> + - list
> HTML does provide lists - but that is only a sub-set of the 'grouping'
Hmm, <ul> is semantically an unordered grouping...
> > (which re-raises the question of whether class="xoxo" is desirable)
> xoxo is desirable when you have two lists of items listed in a single
> Microformat <div>. If you want the first one included in the grouping,
> but don't want the second one - then you need something like xoxo.
> In other words - we want to be explicit, not implicit, about what is
> included in a uF and what is not.
I take your point, though I would have thought it better to use something like:
> The following is needed beyond the examples you gave:
> - The ability to relate items that are not local to one another in an
> HTML page.
doesn't this do that:
<li><a href="#elsewhere">an item</a></li>
> - The ability to relate items on an unstructured basis.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean - isn't a collection a
structure by definition?
More information about the microformats-new