On 6/8/06 1:10 PM, "Ryan King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 8, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Scott Reynen wrote: > >> On Jun 8, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote: >> >>>> At first thought, I don't see why not, but it might require some >>>> more >>>> research. >>> >>> I just checked the spec (HTML4.01), and I agree with Scott's >>> conclusion. >> >> That was actually Ryan's conclusion. >> >> I have a question about the include pattern: is it okay to use >> inclusion on elements whose semantics are tied to parent elements? >> In Michael's example, does <area> still carry the same meaning when >> it has been copied via inclusion outside of its container <map>? >> Can I include <li> outside of <ul>? <td> outside of <table>? > > I'm trying to think of a case that would cause a problem. One would > be the inclusion of a table cell that makes use of headers/axis > stuff. I have a feeling that those references should be followed.
Indeed. I think this should work fine from a tree perspective. Since the semantics of microformats are in the class names rather than the element names, those should work fine. Another question is, should object-includes resolve recursively (unless there is a violation of the ancestor rule) ? That is, consider an page of hReviews that uses object-include to include the hCard for the reviewer which itself uses object-include to include its fn from some other location on the page. When parsing one of the hReviews, and handling its object-include of the reviewer hCard, the nested object-include should be resolved and handled as well. Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
