On 10/9/07, Ben Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From a parsing POV, we're only interested in whether 'optional' is > present or not. If it's absent, we'd be assuming 'required'. We'd be > using a pattern whereby the property value is determined from > presence or absence of the element, not by the value of it. > > Now of course this application is early days and we may yet find > further requirements or different ways of doing it, but I like the > idea of the pattern as it's language agnostic. Also, I think > 'Presence of Property' is a pretty snappy name. > > What would people think about this sort of parsing rule being added > to the microformats cannon?
--- i don´t think a binary true/false should be used as a class attribute. This brings us back to SHOULD, MUST, MAY, you MAY use this or you MAY NOT. Optional might not be a binary relationship. Your example could become: <span><span class="ingredient optional">3 Strawberries</span> (optional)</span> And we are back to hiding data. using the TYPE we can make an enumerated list of OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, MAY, RECOMMENDED, REPLACABLE, SUBSTITUDE, etc. -brian -- brian suda http://suda.co.uk _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
