On 24 Apr 2007, at 01:13, Ryan King wrote:
On Apr 23, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy Mabbett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
<TD class="n">
<SPAN class="honorific-prefix">The Rt Hon</SPAN>
<SPAN class="fn">Tony Blair</SPAN>
<SPAN class="honorific-suffix">MP</SPAN>
</TD>
On reflection, would it make more sense to reverse the "n" and "fn",
thus:
<TD class="fn">
<SPAN class="honorific-prefix">The Rt Hon</SPAN>
<SPAN class="n">Tony Blair</SPAN>
<SPAN class="honorific-suffix">MP</SPAN>
</TD>
honorific-prefix and honorific-suffix are subproperties of n, so
no, I don't think it makes more sense.
They're also subprops of fn when n isn't present. But n is present.
As we know, fn is 'formatted name', and is used to indicate how the
name should be displayed - i.e. which order the components should be
strung together in. Whilst it may be legal to not have fn contain all
the n subprops, it's a bit silly, isn't it? It's not fulfilling its
purpose.
That's what I reckon anyway. Legal, but a bit silly.
drew.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
