Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tantek Çelik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes - only mark up the phone number itself, and violate the hCard specs? That wouldn't violate the hCard spec per se, in that you wouldn't have an invalid hCard, you wouldn't have an hCard at all. If the OP was thinking of: span class=vcard span class=tel+43 780 004711/span /span that would be an invalid hCard. -- Andy Mabbett ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes span class=vcardspan class=fn org tel+43 780 004711/span/span I don't know if fn and org really belong in there. Why would they not? The number is the telephone number of the contact or entity named, identified or labelled as +43 780 004711. Just because you can identify someone (or some group) by a phone number doesn't make that their name. Indeed not; but in the example, given, the phone number is the subject of the page concerned; the number *is* the name-label of that subject. Perhaps it would help to consider a row of three, adjacent and otherwise identical pay-phones, Their *only* distinguishing labels are their telephone numbers. -- Andy Mabbett ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.
On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 12:46 -0700, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: Hello Andy, On 8/23/07, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charles Iliya Krempeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On 8/23/07, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] span class=vcardspan class=fn org tel+43 780 004711/span/span I don't know if fn and org really belong in there. Why would they not? The number is the telephone number of the contact or entity named, identified or labelled as +43 780 004711. Just because you can identify someone (or some group) by a phone number doesn't make that their name. It's like... you can identify someone by their SIN (... or Social Security # in the USA)... but that does NOT make that their name. And thus you would NOT put a fn on that. FN [1] represents the name of the object not a person so to speak so the use of fn in Andys example is fair use I would say. Thanks Martin [1] 3.1.1 FN Type Definition http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2426.txt See ya ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.
Hello Martin, On 8/23/07, Martin McEvoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Just because you can identify someone (or some group) by a phone number doesn't make that their name. It's like... you can identify someone by their SIN (... or Social Security # in the USA)... but that does NOT make that their name. And thus you would NOT put a fn on that. FN [1] represents the name of the object not a person so to speak so the use of fn in Andys example is fair use I would say. In the example we had, as I understood it, this is a telephone number of a person or a company. So... the object is either a person or a company. And given that, I would say that it isn't fair to apply the fn to the telephone number, since it is NOT the name of a person or object. I do understand what you are saying... that the telephone number if the object (and not a person or a company)... but I don't think that is what the website that that came from is shooting for. Correct me if I'm wrong though... but seems that the number is suppose to belong to some person or company. See ya -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. http://ChangeLog.ca/ Vlog Razor... Vlogging News http://vlograzor.com/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
