[uf-discuss] include-pattern parsing

2007-06-20 Thread Tantek Çelik 
redirecting parsing assertion to microformats-dev per mailing-list
guidelines.


On 6/20/07 8:17 PM, "Michael MD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> 
>> Is the object tag to be used instead for the include pattern?
>> 
> 
> given

no, not given, not without a URL to documentation.

> the complexity it adds to non-browser-based parsers

what specific complexities have you encountered in your development of a
non-browser-based parser and have you documented them on the wiki (say on
the include-pattern-issues page)?

Tantek

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] Empty anchor tag-pairs and accessibility (was:Questionabout telephone numbers)

2007-06-20 Thread Michael MD 


Is the object tag to be used instead for the include pattern?



given the complexity it adds to non-browser-based parsers I'm wondering if 
include-pattern is too much trouble to bother with




___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] Empty anchor tag-pairs and accessibility (was: Questionabout telephone numbers)

2007-06-20 Thread James Craig 

James Craig wrote:


Paul Wilkins wrote:


From: "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I thought we'd decided that empty anchor tag-pairs were bad, from  
an accessibility PoV?


Is the object tag to be used instead for the include pattern?


The  include pattern has some performance problems, it  
would be best to use the anchor include pattern but include some  
text indicated the marker that was being included.


In my medicated stupor, I thought that made sense. Let me try it again.

The  include pattern has some performance problems (see  
), so it would  
be best to use the anchor include pattern but include some link text  
indicating the content that is being included. Such as:


Widgets, Inc.


___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] Empty anchor tag-pairs and accessibility (was:Questionabout telephone numbers)

2007-06-20 Thread Paul Wilkins 

From: "James Craig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Paul Wilkins wrote:

Is the object tag to be used instead for the include pattern?


The  include pattern has some performance problems, it would  be 
best to use the anchor include pattern but include some text  indicated 
the marker that was being included.


So when we have multiple phone numbers of the same type

Staff work phone numbers:
...
Person One
123-4567

How should they be marked up. Something like this?

Staff work phone numbers:
...

   Person One
   
   123-4567
   


This feels wrong, and not the least because fragment identifiers have 
received a hammering in terms of usability.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/within_page_links.html

It's tempting to change the text (god forbid) to achieve better code.

Person One
Wk: 123-4567


   Person One
   
   Wk:
   123-4567
   


--
Paul Wilkins 


___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] Empty anchor tag-pairs and accessibility (was: Questionabout telephone numbers)

2007-06-20 Thread James Craig 

Paul Wilkins wrote:


From: "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I thought we'd decided that empty anchor tag-pairs were bad, from  
an accessibility PoV?


Is the object tag to be used instead for the include pattern?


The  include pattern has some performance problems, it would  
be best to use the anchor include pattern but include some text  
indicated the marker that was being included.


James


___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] Empty anchor tag-pairs and accessibility (was: Questionabout telephone numbers)

2007-06-20 Thread Paul Wilkins 

From: "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I thought we'd decided that empty anchor tag-pairs were bad, from an 
accessibility PoV?


Is the object tag to be used instead for the include pattern?

--
Paul Wilkins
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

[uf-discuss] Empty anchor tag-pairs and accessibility (was: Question about telephone numbers)

2007-06-20 Thread Andy Mabbett 
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott 
Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> recommended:






I thought we'd decided that empty anchor tag-pairs were bad, from an 
accessibility PoV?


--
Andy Mabbett
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] Question about telephone numbers

2007-06-20 Thread Paul Wilkins 
- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Reynen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

You can use the include pattern to remove some of this redundancy:

http://microformats.org/wiki/include-pattern

E.g.:

Staff work phone  
numbers:

...

Person One
class="value">123-4567

...


I presume that the anchor should not be #work-title but #work-type ?
...  ...

--
Paul Wilkins
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] Question about telephone numbers

2007-06-20 Thread Scott Reynen 

On Jun 20, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Rickards, Julian (NDM) wrote:


However, given that all of the numbers
are work (voice) numbers and everyone in my work group shares a common
fax number, it seemed redundant to write Workspan>

for each person.


You can use the include pattern to remove some of this redundancy:

http://microformats.org/wiki/include-pattern

E.g.:

Staff work phone  
numbers:

...

Person One
	class="value">123-4567

...

Peace,
Scott

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

RE: [uf-discuss] Question about telephone numbers

2007-06-20 Thread Rickards, Julian (NDM) 
Your suggestion seems to agree with what Ryan wrote moments before you
that "type" must be specified. However, given that all of the numbers
are work (voice) numbers and everyone in my work group shares a common
fax number, it seemed redundant to write Work
for each person.

It appears that Tails Export fails to properly export hCard telephone
whereas Operator does export the telephone to Outlook 2003.

Thanks for the help guys,

Jules

PS: I'll have other questions so don't write me off yet. jr

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Montgomery, Mike
Subject: RE: [uf-discuss] Question about telephone numbers

I was able to get phone numbers to export into Outlook by specifying a
"type" and "value.  I have updated your example as follows:

Jim McAuley, 705-670-5855 (Work), mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

RE: [uf-discuss] Question about telephone numbers

2007-06-20 Thread Montgomery, Mike 
I was able to get phone numbers to export into Outlook by specifying a
"type" and "value.  I have updated your example as follows:

Jim McAuley, 705-670-5855 (Work), mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]

There may be a different (and better way) to get it to work but this is
how I was able to do it.

Mike

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rickards, Julian (NDM)
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 2:42 PM
To: microformats-discuss@microformats.org
Subject: [uf-discuss] Question about telephone numbers

Hi:

I am working on our government web site and am working towards
implementing the hCard microformat for our contact pages. However, I am
having a bit of difficulty with phone numbers.

To "verify" my work, I installed the Tails Export extension for Firefox
but when I export to Microsoft Outlook Contacts, the telephone number in
the hCard doesn't export.

An example of my efforts is:

Jim McAuley, 705-670-5855, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Is the problem with the export a limitation on Tails Export (I also
tried the Operator extension with the same results) or something else?

TIA,

Jules 

 
--
Julian Rickards
Geoscience Data Conversion Technician
Provincial Recording Office, Level B3
Sudbury, ON  P3E 6B5
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (705) 670-5861, Fax: (705) 670-5881

___
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

Re: [uf-discuss] uF dumped in tag soup?

2007-06-20 Thread Ryan King 

On Jun 15, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Dougal Campbell wrote:


Okay, so I started a new job recently.

The web site and service has a lot to do with SEO. But despite  
that, the

HTML is a mess of table-based layout and tag soup. I'm hoping I can
change that in time, but it won't happen quickly. But one of the main
reasons that I think it's possible to change it is because I think  
that

the interest in microformats, and the related boost in search indexing
from Technorati and friends, will appeal to my boss. And from there, I
have a stepping stone to the benefits of POSH in a more general sense.

So I guess my question is, if I manage to shove some microformats
(rel-tag, hCard and hReview come to mind) into the middle of our
ugly-as-sin markup, are we going to get raked across the coals? :)


Go for it. It's not guaranteed to work everywhere, since tag soup  
parsing isn't well defined and interoperable (we're working on that,  
though [1]).


Many tools use tidy or libxml2's html parsing interface, so most will  
work pretty well already.


-ryan

1. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#parsing
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] Question about telephone numbers

2007-06-20 Thread Ryan King 

On Jun 20, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Rickards, Julian (NDM) wrote:


Hi:

I am working on our government web site and am working towards
implementing the hCard microformat for our contact pages. However,  
I am

having a bit of difficulty with phone numbers.

To "verify" my work, I installed the Tails Export extension for  
Firefox
but when I export to Microsoft Outlook Contacts, the telephone  
number in

the hCard doesn't export.

An example of my efforts is:

Jim McAuley, 705-670-5855, href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]a>



Is the problem with the export a limitation on Tails Export (I also
tried the Operator extension with the same results) or something else?


It's most likely a problem with outlook (see [1]). If you could  
provide us with a URL to an example that doesn't work, or a full  
example of the markup (in email) we'd be able to help more.


-ryan


1. http://microformats.org/wiki/vcard-implementations#Microsoft_Outlook
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

[uf-discuss] Question about telephone numbers

2007-06-20 Thread Rickards, Julian (NDM) 
Hi:

I am working on our government web site and am working towards
implementing the hCard microformat for our contact pages. However, I am
having a bit of difficulty with phone numbers.

To "verify" my work, I installed the Tails Export extension for Firefox
but when I export to Microsoft Outlook Contacts, the telephone number in
the hCard doesn't export.

An example of my efforts is:

Jim McAuley, 705-670-5855, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Is the problem with the export a limitation on Tails Export (I also
tried the Operator extension with the same results) or something else?

TIA,

Jules 

 
--
Julian Rickards
Geoscience Data Conversion Technician
Provincial Recording Office, Level B3
Sudbury, ON  P3E 6B5
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (705) 670-5861, Fax: (705) 670-5881

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss