On 9/25/06, Ross Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be a reasonable option, though I'd also suggest a more
generic document fallback (because real world citation practice just
doesn't fit pre-defined boxes). Also, *if* you have a container typed
as a journal then you also need a
Followup blog post:
http://netapps.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/darcusb/archives/2006/09/26/reference-types
Bruce
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Michael McCracken mumbled the following on 25/09/2006 23:05:
I do agree that using an element with type class instead of a huge
number of type classes is the way to go here, to avoid class namespace
pollution.
Comments?
I agree. It follows one of the principles of Minimising Vocabulary, and
On 9/25/06, Michael McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do agree that using an element with type class instead of a huge
number of type classes is the way to go here, to avoid class namespace
pollution.
I actually don't like using the separate element, in part because this
information is
On 9/25/06, Bruce D'Arcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/25/06, Michael McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do agree that using an element with type class instead of a huge
number of type classes is the way to go here, to avoid class namespace
pollution.
I actually don't like using the
On Sep 25, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Michael McCracken wrote:
I know what you mean - the type matters in how you format the
reference, but it isn't usually displayed. This is something we'll
have to hammer out. Right now it looks like a tradeoff between
flexibility and elegance, but I'm hoping for a
On 9/25/06, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 25, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Michael McCracken wrote:
I know what you mean - the type matters in how you format the
reference, but it isn't usually displayed. This is something we'll
have to hammer out. Right now it looks like a tradeoff
On 9/25/06, Michael McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The option of just ignoring types altogether - not including a type
property at all - is certainly possible - it would make human-reading
and publishing easier but automatic parsing somewhat harder. This
might be a worthwhile tradeoff.
I
On 9/25/06, Ross Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/25/06, Michael McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The option of just ignoring types altogether - not including a type
property at all - is certainly possible - it would make human-reading
and publishing easier but automatic parsing
