- From: ryan king <ryan@theryanking.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:01:06 -0800
On Dec 5, 2006, at 2:48 PM, Elias Torres wrote: > ryan king wrote: >> You're not missing anything. There is no documentation for >> "additional >> fields in an hCard". There is no extensibility mechanism for >> individual >> microformats because it's not necessary. If you want to create a new >> vocabulary to use along with hCard, just start using it in your >> markup. >> If it becomes popular enough, you might be able to get it added to >> hCard >> (if it ever in the future diverges from a 1:1 mapping from vCard). > > I guess that's the crux of the matter here. You believe that "it's not > necessary" to extend microformats. I didn't say that. I said that it's not necessary to provide a mechanism in individual microformats for them to be extended. We're working in an open vocabulary, where anyone can use any term, with no namespaces. You don't need to extend hCard, you just need to use semantic (x)html. > I believe we do. Ian gives me the > impression that all you need is class/rel/profile to have a fully > extensible and capable HTML and it might be the case with extra text > processing within class values. But I'd rather have a small new set of > attributes specific for this purpose. BTW, we will still use class, > rel > and profile, just need about, property and content/datatype. > > As IBM we are not expecting our formats to become "popular", we just > want our customers/products to use validated HTML for their > applications. We shouldn't need to ask microformats to include our > product attributes in their specs everytime we think of a new feature. I agree. You never need to include your semantic (x)html in community- developed microformats. -ryan
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 15:01:06 UTC