On 9/24/06 3:15 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Otherwise there is a ballooning of optional components. > > That's absurd, and a very weak and illogical form of argument. Nobody is > suggesting any more than one optional component. You've invented the > rest. Even one additional optional component adds complexity. This is unfortunately from experience (not just mine) with *LOTS* of standards development. >> In terms of date, I suggest you look to the context of the document >> itself (or perhaps surrounding blog post) for date time information. >> E.g. consider marking up a context with hAtom inside which the currency >> would be implied to be "current" according to the "published" datetime. >> I would assert this covers far more than the 80/20 case but more like >> the 99+% case (ecommerce sites etc.). > > And is there, or is there ever likely to be an hAtom parser which > converts historical to current values? Not the point. The point is that "current" values are 99+% case (we can count/cite pages on eBay, Amazon etc. if you like) which are easily represented by using hAtom + currency, thus relegating purely historical references to the <20% case which we reject for v1 of a microformat. > Finally, I thought the community wanted evidence, not assertions? Are you seriously arguing that there are more than 20% references to explicit *historical* currency amounts in contrast to all the e-commerce sites out there which reference "current" values as of the date-time of the publication of the page? Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
