In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian
Suda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On 01/01/2008, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward O'Connor
>> >How about <abbr> without @title?
>> ...
>> which Operator handles (plaudits due!) but for which X2V returns null values.
>
>The current mark-up is:
><abbr class="fn" title="">Fred</abbr>
>The user has explicitly said that the value of the ABBR is blank, so
>this is what X2V is pulling as the value of FN.
Per my subsequent, and more detailed, notes at:
<http://microformats.org/wiki/abbr-design-pattern-issues#Issues>
* How are empty (title="") title attributes to be parsed? At the
time of writing, X2V returns a null value; Operator uses the
content of the abbr element. Such mark-up is valid, but
semantically illogical. The former parser behaviour seems the
most logical, but results in an invalid vCard.
* How are missing title attributes to be parsed? This is both
valid and semantically-meaningful mark-up (the content is an
abbreviation, but we know not of what). At the time of writing,
X2V and Operator both use the content of the abbr element; this
seems sensible, and should, perhaps, be ratified in the spec.
See:
<http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/test>
for examples.
>We can discuss if is to correct to "help" the user, or to take what is
>explicitly been encoded no matter how silly it may seem?
Indeed. We could also declare that:
<abbr class="[microformat-class]" title="">
in a microformat renders that microformat invalid, and that parsers
should generate an error message.
What I hope we all agree that we should not do, is to continue to have
different behaviour from the two leading parsers!
--
Andy Mabbett
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
