On Sep 18, 2006, at 5:19 PM, Kevin Marks wrote:
On Sep 18, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
- do we really need a /different/ microformat for every body being
described? is there a way to add a third value for type (or body, or
something more appropriate) to geo without breaking exiting spec /
rules or muddying things up too much?
I did consider that, but I'm not sure how one could attach the extra
attribute, I also considered "geo-luna" and "geo-mars"; but the
meaning
of "geo" is "(planet) Earth", so it's not really appropriate.
How about adding a container around the geo that specifies the
planet (or geoid, if you want to get extra fussy. You can say it
defaults to WSGS-84, which is backwards compatible).
Anything that doesn't treat everything marked with class="geo" as
coordinated on Earth will not be backwards compatible, because that's
the assumed planet for all existing geo parsers. Currently
class="geo" is implicitly defined as referring to Earth, and re-using
it for the moon and Mars would be changing the definition to refer to
any spherical body in the universe. I don't see much advantage in
making that change. For parsers, it will create more work. For
publishers, aren't we just talking about the difference between
class="geo luna" and class="geo-luna"?
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
