DavidOsolkowski: Cleaner grammar

2006-08-29T19:56:55Z

Cleaner grammar

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 29 August 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~<h1>~~ microformats easier than xml ~~</h1>~~		= microformats easier than xml =

	(This article is a stub, feel free to expand upon it)		(This article is a stub, feel free to expand upon it)
Line 5:		Line 5:
	From Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau:		From Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau:

	* As a spec writer, you don't have to come up with wholly [[plain-old-xml-considered-harmful\|new XML]] or XML+RDF dialects		* As a spec writer, you don't have to come up with wholly [[plain-old-xml-considered-harmful\|new XML]] or XML+RDF dialects.
	* As an author, you don't have to learn about how to deal with [[namespaces-considered-harmful\|XML namespaces]] and, generally, embedding other XML into XHTML		* As an author, you don't have to learn about how to deal with [[namespaces-considered-harmful\|XML namespaces]] and, generally, embedding other XML into XHTML.
	* Even more importantly, you don't have to deal with the ~~massive amount of~~ quirks ~~wrt/ handling~~ XML ~~namespaces~~ in browsers.		* Even more importantly, you don't have to deal with the numerous quirks in XML namespace support in browsers.

	All you have to do is learn to use a few more [[semantic-class-names\|class names]], which virtually every browser already supports anyway, due to their extensive use in CSS.		All you have to do is learn to use a few more [[semantic-class-names\|class names]], which virtually every browser already supports anyway, due to their extensive use in CSS.

	And because you're just using HTML/XHTML classes, you can already benefit from the way a browser treats them. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. ~~A namespaced implemented~~ would require you to come up with styling for every single element, but using (X)HTML classes lets you take advantage of the existing styling of (X)HTML elements.		And because you're just using HTML/XHTML classes, you can already benefit from the way a browser treats them. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Namespaced elements would require you to come up with styling for every single element, but using (X)HTML classes lets you take advantage of the existing styling of (X)HTML elements.

	== See Also ==		== See Also ==

Tantek: first draft

2006-07-22T19:36:01Z

first draft

New page

<h1> microformats easier than xml </h1>

(This article is a stub, feel free to expand upon it)

From Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau:

* As a spec writer, you don't have to come up with wholly [[plain-old-xml-considered-harmful|new XML]] or XML+RDF dialects
* As an author, you don't have to learn about how to deal with [[namespaces-considered-harmful|XML namespaces]] and, generally, embedding other XML into XHTML
* Even more importantly, you don't have to deal with the massive amount of quirks wrt/ handling XML namespaces in browsers.

All you have to do is learn to use a few more [[semantic-class-names|class names]], which virtually every browser already supports anyway, due to their extensive use in CSS.

And *because* you're just using HTML/XHTML classes, you can already benefit from the way a browser treats them. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. A namespaced implemented would require you to come up with styling for every single element, but using (X)HTML classes lets you take advantage of the existing styling of (X)HTML elements.

== See Also ==

* [[namespaces-considered-harmful]]
* [[plain-old-xml-considered-harmful]]
* [[semantic-xhtml]]
* [[semantic-class-names]]

microformats-easier-than-xml - Revision history

DavidOsolkowski: Cleaner grammar

Tantek: first draft