Guillaume Lebleu wrote: > I was wondering what the configuration objects look like. Do you use a grammar for each uf expressed?
They are c# collections. The plan is that once I have tuned the components compliancy, I will add Xml serialisation. This will mean that anyone will be able to defined their own POSH pattern or test new uf ideas. I believe this is similar to how Michael Kaply used JavaScript objects to defind microformats in Operator. Take a look at hAtom.js on http://www.kaply.com/weblog/operator-user-scripts/. The Xml from a ufXtract configuration objects should look like: <ufformatdescriber> <name>geo</name> <description>Location constructed of latitude and longitude</description> <type>geo</type> <ufelementdescriber name="geo" attribute="class" mandatory="false", multiples="true" concatenatevalues="false" type="text"> <ufelementdescriber name="latitude" attribute="class" mandatory="false", multiples="false" concatenatevalues="false" type="text" /> <ufelementdescriber name="longitude" attribute="class" mandatory="false", multiples="false" concatenatevalues="false" type="text" /> </ufelementdescriber> </ufformatdescriber> This are more complex in real life, but should give you an idea. You can not define everything this way, there are some rules like hCard implied 'n' optimization which cannot be describe with this type of schemea. That said it covers most cases without having to add new hardcoded rules to the parser. Glenn Jones www.glennjones.net _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
