On Jul 25, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Chris Casciano wrote:
On Jul 25, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Ryan King wrote:
On Jul 24, 2006, at 6:38 AM, Chris Casciano wrote:
Issue: is the reliance on class + id too strict? we may be losing
other non-ambiguous constructs for sake of simplicity (e.g. roots
are [1]body [2] hfeed w/id or [1] body w/ id [2] hfeed w/id)
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Can you expound a bit?
If you look at the hfeed tests I posted at that link there are a
few potentially non-ambiguous cases where both feeds could be
explicitly identified.. particularly the following markup from some
document test.html:
<body id="feed1">
<!-- feed 1 entries -->
<div class="hfeed" id="feed2">
<!-- feed 2 entries -->
</div>
</body>
this.html#feed2 is clear that you're addressing the inner feed...
but does this.html#feed1 address the outer feed only, or do you
combine the feed contents via SOURCE as you would this.html? [Here
i would /think/ you'd grab just feed1, but i could go both ways.]
I was under the impression that the implied-root-classname
optimization only applies if the root classname doesn't appear in the
document. In other words, #feed1 is not a feed.
I guess that brings up the general case of what to do with a
fragment ID when its not an hfeed element.. just parse inside the
HTML fragment or ignore it? e.g.
With X2V, we parse inside it. I think this is the most user-friendly
thing to do.
<body id="feed1">
<!-- feed 1 entries -->
<div class="hfeed" id="feed2">
<div id="notafeed">
<!-- feed 2 entries -->
<div>
</div>
</body>
if the parser is passed the url test.html#notafeed do you look only
inside that fragment creating an almost identical feed to #feed2,
or ignore it and grab the whole page? [Here i'd ignore it]
This is a bit tricky, but I'd err on just doing what the user says.
If they want that part of the page, then give it to them.
-ryan
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
