In terms of faqqing it, please also add a link to the Optimizations section(s).
On 3/29/06, Ryan King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss