On Oct 9, 2007, at 6:43 AM, Ben Ward wrote:
<span class="ingredient">3 Strawberries <span class="optional">
(optional)</span></span>
What would people think about this sort of parsing rule being added
to the microformats cannon?
I don't like how that reads. The HTML spec says of the class
attribute "the element may be said to belong to these classes" [1],
but I don't think that's true in this case. We would say "3
Strawberries (optional)" belongs to the class of ingredient but we
would not say "(optional)" belongs to the class of optional. "3
Strawberries" belongs to that class, which would give us this:
<span class="ingredient optional">3 Strawberries</span> (optional)
But that also gets into repeating ourselves. Alternatively, I think
it may be better to say that "(optional)" belongs to a class of
dispensability, giving us this:
<span class="ingredient">3 Strawberries <span class="dispensability">
(optional)</span></span>
And maybe some parsers could assume any amount of dispensability
makes something entirely optional, but others may choose to present
the specific level of dispensability to users directly, as it may
contain more specific information.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.2
--
Scott Reynen
MakeDataMakeSense.com
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
