Everybody, Thanks for your feedback and comments.
I think I hadn't fully appreciated the declarative nature of the format, probably because I'd been using it within a browser environment that already supports javascript and the DOM API. The steamroller was at hand and I know how to (mis-)use it. Still, I think Ryan nailed it when he said[1] regarding the include-pattern: """ That's exactly what it is– a kludge. However, I don't think it semantic abuse of the object element, nor do I believe we have any better options at this point. However, if you think of a better approach, then that'd be great. """ The good reasons for not supporting a DOM-based approach, which you were all kind enough to spell out for me, still don't lend much weight in my eyes to the include-pattern approach. -ml [1] http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-June/004310.html _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
