On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 13:38 -0500, Chris Griego wrote: > I absolutely agree with Brian's sentiment here that the optional > container class names that exist today have very different semantics. > That's why I maintained them in my proposed option[1] while also > trying to avoid the need for any form of namespacing or notation, dot > or otherwise, in the class attribute. > > Replacing the existing container class names are a non-problem, but I > recognize that sparse grouping is a problem, which is why I see hSet's > role more as an alternative to the include-pattern, which is a useful > solution (that uses the ID attribute) in many situations, but clunky > at best when dealing with sparse grouping. Case in point is that > Martin's rev-based option is reinvention of the include-pattern with > all of the same clunkiness. > > [1] > http://microformats.org/wiki/grouping-brainstorming#Option_7:_id-class_grouping >
Chris please explain why rev="has-part" is in any way like the include pattern?, there certainly isn't any "clunkiness" behind a single proposed mf that may serve the same purpose as any other more complex formulas. Here are a few references to how I came to my conclusion http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/modules/dcterms/#hasPart http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-application-profile/2007-03-09/#coldctermshasPart Anyway comments are welcome, have fun ;) -Martin-
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
