In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe Andrieu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Either we need a generic "exclusion" container so that parent uFs can
know to ignore potential duplicates in a child uF--which I think is the
heart of the "mfo" suggestion--
How would they be backwards-compatible?
or we need unique field names.
Unique field names are "POSH".
Otherwise, we might as well start labelling with class="thing" or
class="property16", class="property17" et al.
--
Andy Mabbett
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
