On 2/7/08 10:08 AM, "Manu Sporny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It invalidates the need for "mfo" in hcard, doesn't it? > If it were applied to the rest of Microformats, it would invalidate the > need for "mfo" entirely. This is one of the reasons "mfo" has not progressed much further than the examples given in mfo-examples - it hasn't been necessary in practice. However, mfo may be needed for current parsers to be able to properly encapsulate new microformats that come along (this is often referred to as forward-compatible parsing), in the same way that they can explicitly do so with the limited set of existing microformats. As this topic is more related to parsing, I think the -dev list (on the To line) may be the more appropriate place to discuss it, while hopefully sympathetically taking into consideration the additional authoring cost/requirement of adding "mfo" (or whatever we come up with) as an additional class name to new compound microformats' root elements, e.g. class="mfo hunknown". Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss