Luke, Thanks for writing this up. I like the microformat approach one several levels in that it is viewable in a browser and resuses an existing format. I also agree that the difference in effort between parsing a microformat approach and a Collection Document is insignificant.
On the other hand the microformat approach does have one big drawback and that is the lack of a unique mime-type. This makes dispatching to different clients from within a browser difficult, and for that reason I am not in favor of using a microformat based approach. -joe On 10/16/05, Luke Arno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have posted PaceXHTMLIntrospection [1] to the wiki. > > I have asked on the microformats list about Eric's XHTML > parsing concerns (multiple class names [2]) and have > received responses indicating that it is not a problem > [3] [4] [5] from those have done it extensively. > > I am sure that I have still not done this in the optimal way > but if we want to do this (in general) the microformats > community is an excellent resource for getting it right. > > - Luke > > [1] http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceXHTMLIntrospection > [2] http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg02004.html > [3] > http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2005-October/001408.html > [4] > http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2005-October/001405.html > [5] > http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2005-October/001412.html > > -- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
