On Jul 9, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
Ryan wrote:
(sidenote: I don't think the @type should be required after this
change)
I'm not sure about that. OT1H the addition of the "type" attribute
tries to
communicate that the "include" is "just" HTML. OTOH the "text/
html" type is
for a whole document, not just a fragment so it might not be
correct to use
"text/html" for the include-pattern.
...
Thoughts?
My thought: specifying the mime-type on a local IDREF violates the
DRY principle. A local IDREF refers to the existing document so any
mime-type applied to that reference will be:
1. non-standard,
2. wrong, or
3. duplicative
In other words if the mimetype is wrong, the @type attribute is
worthless, if it's correct, it doesn't tell us anything we don't
already know. The best we can hope for is a non standard mimetype
which hasn't been used anywhere before.
I still vote for not requiring it.
-ryan_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
