On Mar 29, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Chris Messina wrote:
Actually, I've wondered this myself and think that people will
actually do this regardless...
So while I take your point Tantek, I think allowing this actually
makes sense. Parsers should treat combined microformats and objects as
non-nested objects... basically the equivalent behavior of shorthand
CSS styles:
background-color: #fff;
background-image: url(image.gif);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
and
background: url(image.gif) no-repeat #fff;
Bad comparison: there is no nesting in CSS declarations and the
vocabulary is centrally controlled (unlike semantics in HTML class,
rel and other attributes).
Therefore, using:
<span class="author vcard fn">My Name</span>
would be the equivalent of
<span class="author vcard"><span class="fn">My Name</span></span>
...except that it wouldn't be nestable.
This saves a bunch of code and writing and makes for a more elegant
solution, IMO.
The problem with this is that it throws out the advantages that
unique root class names give us, namely, context. If we flatten the
hierarchy, we greatly constrain our vocabulary, which we have enough
trouble managing, as is.
-ryan
PS- we really need to FAQ this, it seems to come up once a month.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
