Joe Andrieu wrote:
I believe that the problem is that more than a few of the parsers use XSLT
operating on the file itself, rather than a DOM. Relying
on a browser to parse the (X)HTML into a DOM is convenient, but it is also
expensive architecturally, especially when doing
server-side processing that may not have a browser in process. XSLT is
relatively fast and lightweight, if you have valid XML as
input and it is notoriously unforgiving.
So, I believe that valid HTML that is not valid XHTML is non-compliant with uF.
I expect that some of the tools work if the uF
sections are XML compliant despite errors elsewhere, but I can't be certain of
that.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but isn't this approach contrary to the
point of Microformats (namely, to make data easy to publish on the web)?
Given that an overwhelming proportion of the pages around on the web are
either served up as HTML (valid or otherwise) or invalid XHTML,
restricting Microformats to those pages which are valid XHTML for the
sake of easy parsing (as an XSLT-only parser surely would) seems to
directly contravene the "humans first, machines second" principle.
--
David Thompson
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
