In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Scott Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
"symbol" suffered the same lack of consensus, possibly due to a lack
of understanding of the benefits. Maybe a more detailed explanation
of the benefits of such a class name would be worth writing. If I
understood correctly, the main value would be for a user agent to be
able to replace it with the symbol of the currency that the amount
is converted to. If that's the case, I would argue that a user
agent may not want to replace the content, since it may fool the
user into believing that these amounts are guaranteed by the
publisher/merchant, where in fact, they would be mere estimates,
which may differ from the actual rate charged by the merchant or the financial intermediary.
That's hypothetical argument backed with no evidence.
As is the value of "symbol," which I gather was Guillaume's point, and
a larger concern. Until that value is explained more convincingly and
gains more consensus, is there any harm in moving forward with the
smaller set of properties everyone already supports? We can always
add "symbol" later, right? Or is "symbol" so important that a
currency microformat is useless without it? If so, that importance
isn't yet apparent.
My contention is that published amounts of money - such as those listed
as examples on the wiki, and others - often include a symbol, that
symbol may be obscure, or take the form of a letter which is
indistinguishable from other text. It may occur before, in the middle,
or following numbers.
Only by marking it up can we be sure that parsers know to remove it when
converting to an alternative currency.
The same applies to "value" in words (as in "five pounds" or "10
cents").
--
Andy Mabbett
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
microformats-new@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
