On Jun 10, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
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.
Wasn't there some talk of having the semantics of table cells exist
in the table headers and propagate to the cells via scope="col"? I
can't find it in the archive. Did I totally imagine that?
Right now I have a microformat parser that requires valid XHTML but
doesn't do inclusion, and a proxy that does inclusion, but may turn
valid XHTML into invalid XHTML in the process. I intend to resolve
this by merging the two, but that's only an option because I'm
rewriting the parser anyway. So I'm wondering how such an issue
would best be resolved if merging weren't an option. Should parsers
not require valid XHTML input, or is it just not possible to cleanly
detach inclusion from the rest of the parsing process?
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
