On Dec 13, 2006, at 1:40 AM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
Making people use them is not the same as clarifying in a spec what
should be done, must be done, and what is optional. If we are
specifying that parsers can ignore non-profiled semantic HTML that
looks
like microformats, we are essentially saying parsers can ignore
non-profiled microformats, since you can't tell the difference. Which
means that URI profiles are /effectively/ required if you want to be
assured that standards-compliant parsers will pick them up your
microformats.
Yea! I think profiles are great. So, why not formalize the
requirement?
So profile URIs are described here:
http://microformats.org/wiki/profile-uris
where it says:
"it is ACCEPTED that each microformat should have a profile URI."
I agree it would help to make that more clear, but if you're
suggesting we change that "should" to a "must," I'd ask you what
practical benefit you expect publishers would gain from such a
change. We're trying to avoid solving hypothetical problems here,
and I don't see a practical problem profile URIs solve yet, as I
haven't noticed anyone using class="vcard" to designate their
Valentine's Day cards or anything else other than hCard. If you're
interested in seeing wider adoption of profile URIs, I'd recommend
work on filling in the XMDPs for every microformat, because it
wouldn't make much sense to require publishers to point to profiles
which don't exist.
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
