There are really two problems being discussed here. Microformat
opacity and class name clashes between microformats. A solution to
the former problem relegates the latter to a mere matter of
aesthetics; a solution to the latter problem does nothing for the
former problem.
To illustrate, say we solve the "title" problem by defining "htitle"
as a common title/heading property. That alone will not solve:
<div class="hentry">
<h1 class="htitle">My Thoughts for the Day</h1>
<div class="entry-content hreview">
<h2 class="htitle">Foo Song Sucks</h2>
<div class="item haudio">
<h3 class="htitle">Foo Song</h3>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Without microformat opacity, the hentry's title could be parsed as
any of "My Thoughts for the Day", "Foo Song Sucks" or "Foo Song".
"htitle" would do nothing to solve this. Better implementation of MFO
in parsers would.
I have documented Cognition's MFO on the Wiki. Back in March I
outlined the gist of the algorithm here:
http://microformats.org/wiki/mfo-
brainstorming#mfo_class_is_a_workable_solution
More recently, I've documented Cognition's entire Microformat parsing
algorithm (apart from recent support I've added for parsing
durations) here:
http://microformats.org/wiki/parsing-brainstorming
I believe this offers a bullet-proof approach to microformat opacity,
but would certainly appreciate counter-examples to further refine the
algorithm.
I'd suggest that this discussion shift to uf-dev.
--
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
