What about using the same markup as the appropriate uF, but a different root class name (such as 'form')?
On 9/28/06, Ben Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frances Berriman wrote: > Did > you see Drews demo of that with openID? It didn't require the forms > to use the microformat class names or anything. Yeah, I've seen Drew's excellent auto-fill demo and had a couple of conversations with him about combining that with OpenID. This isn't so much about providing my own custom µf autofill as part of the web app (yet ;-) ), which would of course understand my bespoke form arrangement. It's more about putting the classnames in place that a separate tool, browser or bookmarklet could provide a more accurate/ powerful autofill than the guesswork based autofills we have at the moment. On 28 Sep 2006, at 12:53, Ciaran McNulty wrote: > The problem is that under most uF parsing rules, <input> elements' > @value will not be used to determine their content. However, a > <textarea> would be parsable as you'd expect. That could be resolved by adding a new design pattern for input elements. Ben_______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
-- - Stephen Paul Weber, Amateur Writer <http://www.awriterz.org> MSN/GTalk/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ/AIM: 103332966 NSA: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BLOG: http://singpolyma-tech.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
