Ryan King wrote: >> I propose that we use this collection-design-pattern mentioned above for >> specifying all collections due to the following advances over all of the >> other proposed methods: > > Using the word "pattern" makes is sound like this has been used before > multiple times. Until something is used in several microformats, I see > no reasonable way to call it a design pattern.
Point taken - the reason it was proposed as a pattern is that it would be used in audio, video and images - and could be used in geo. It also doesn't use the 'class' attribute to make itself known. Is it okay if we call it grouping-examples for now and go from there? Also, how many uFs does something have to be in to be considered a pattern? I couldn't find anything on the wiki outlining the proposal process for patterns. -- manu _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
