On Jun 5, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Michael Leikam wrote:
could you (or anybody else really)
explain a little more about the differences you see between
supporting DOM manipulation during the parsing, as I've
suggested, and supporting include-patterns?
The include pattern describes simple behavior (include the referenced
fragment). DOM manipulation is one specific implementation of that
behavior, and much more beyond it.
What is the difference between defining a data
format and defining what people do with that data format
(i.e., what that data format is used for)?
I think the important difference is that the former makes
communication easier and the latter makes communication more difficult.
But in order for the parser
to generate the target format, you've defined this
procedure:
---------
if class is "include", grab the referenced node including
descendants and replace the current node with the
referenced one.
---------
I think the HTML spec pretty much defines this procedure:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-data
"This attribute may be used to specify the location of the object's
data ... a serialized form of an object which can be used to recreate
it."
Maybe this is a good example of why specs shouldn't be repeated.
The sort of markup I had in mind was something like this:
---------
<div id="company">
<div class="hcard">
<h1 class="fn org">Michael's Webby Widgets</h1>
<div class="adr">
<span class="locality">Los Angeles</span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="hcard" onUFparseEvent="add_org_and_city()">
<div class="fn">Michael Leikam</fn>
<a class="email" href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
</div>
---------
This is invalid XHTML. There is no onUFparseEvent attribute for div
tags. We can't just add arbitrary attributes to XHTML, and
especially not if we expect anyone else to understand what we're
trying to communicate.
Adding an ID to span.locality, which I think
is how include-pattern wants to handle this, isn't
appealing because I'd want to use a generic hcard generator
for any contact information.
I don't think that's what the include pattern is for. You might want
to look at microtemplates, as it seems to be more what you're after:
http://microtemplates.org/
But from the replies I've
gotten, it sounds like this is the beginning of a
discussion and not something that is already ongoing.
The inclusion pattern is a relatively new introduction to
microformats. The object tag is older than microformats. The
principle of separating markup from functionality is older than
microformats.
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
