Difference between revisions of "mfo-brainstorming"

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Moved issues under relevant proposal)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
-- [[User:ScottReynen|ScottReynen]]
 
-- [[User:ScottReynen|ScottReynen]]
 
   
 
   
==Issues==
+
=== Issues ===
 
*People who publish using blogs, CMSs, Wikis etc. (including this wiki!) have no ability to add or change profile URIs in header tags. [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]] 14:28, 17 Jun 2007 (PDT)
 
*People who publish using blogs, CMSs, Wikis etc. (including this wiki!) have no ability to add or change profile URIs in header tags. [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]] 14:28, 17 Jun 2007 (PDT)
  

Revision as of 22:04, 17 June 2007

Microformat Opacity/Object/Opaque Brainstorming

Can increased use of profile URIs solve this problem?

profile-uris are already recommended. Here's a proposal to make them required whenever opacity rules come up:

  • Whenever one microformat is used within another, the interior microformat's profile URI MUST be used.
  • Parsers must disregard all content within the root element identified in an unrecognized profile.

While not as flexible as an additional class name (e.g. class="mfo"), I like that profile URIs don't require publishers to think about parsing behavior.

-- ScottReynen

Issues

  • People who publish using blogs, CMSs, Wikis etc. (including this wiki!) have no ability to add or change profile URIs in header tags. Andy Mabbett 14:28, 17 Jun 2007 (PDT)

Related pages

mfo-examples