Since microformats are published in both HTML and XHTML, I think we
need to tidy up our references on the Wiki. Again this week we've had
an — admittedly premature — suggestion of new syntax which is XHTML
only (a /). That proposal has a few problems as have been
discussed, but I think we
On Nov 26, 2007 3:42 PM, Ben Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is about making clear that microformats are an HTML technology,
not an exclusively XHTML technology. 'HTML' implies compatibility
with XHTML, 'XHTML' does not imply compatibility with HTML.
It sounds like a solid idea to me, but
2007/11/26, Ben Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is about making clear that microformats are an HTML technology,
not an exclusively XHTML technology. 'HTML' implies compatibility
with XHTML, 'XHTML' does not imply compatibility with HTML.
--- i'm not sure HTML does imply compatibility with XHTML.
+1.
I agree with the concern. I sat on a presentation where the speaker
spoke of microformats as if they were xhtml-only. I know the POSH
concept is there to prevent this confusion, but apparently, it's not
enough, Is it? Maybe POS(X)H doesn't seem to cut it, does it?
--
André Luís
On Nov 26,
