Hi Bruce,
My point, Ernie, is there's no obvious way to map it onto a model. I
Um, maybe I'm not quite understanding what you mean by "model". Are
you saying that there's no way to create a generic parser that
transforms the microformatted data into a normalized form?
What you may not realize (I didn't at first either) is that
microformats.org is -- by *definition* -- optimizing for a world
there are only a "handful" of discrete microformats. Thus, there is
no point in worrying about the general case; there are only special
cases, and a relatively small number of those.
You may not believe or agree with that definition (not all of us do
either :-), but that's the rules we play by here. If you want a more
generic approach, you might be happier with GRDDL.
Cheers,
-- Ernie P.
On Dec 8, 2006, at 2:11 PM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
On 12/8/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 8, 2006, at 4:04 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> Likewise, using class to indicate both properties and, um,
class, is
> also a hack.
I think that's probably where we part company. I suspect most of us
here consider the use of HTML "class" for semantic information fully
in line with the both the letter and spirit of the spec, and thus an
entirely natural usage.
My point, Ernie, is there's no obvious way to map it onto a model. I
don't think that's such a controversial thing to say. We've got tables
and columns (RDBMSes), resources and properties (RDF), objects and
attributes (oo). Class and ... ?
Bruce
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
