- From: Colin Lieberman <colin@fontshop.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:58:16 -0800
Hi; This is my first post to the list. Andy - one of my first thoughts when reading through the HTML5 spec was that one of the benefits of dramatically improving available markup would be getting rid of the need for microformats-type approaches. With all possible respect to microformats, I see them as a hack -- a hack that grew out of the deficiencies of HTML. A good, general purpose <address> element could meet all the needs met by the adr microformat, with the benefits of being standardized, and the possibility of user-agents handling the markup natively. Perhaps what's needed is a type attribute ("postal", "email", etc) as well as a rel attribute ("author", "contact", "example", etc.). Maybe it would be useful to have a "for" attribute: <address type="postal" rel="contact" for="cal_08_07">...</address> would signify a postal contact address for the content of the element with id cal_08_07. I think it's useful to look at microformats as examples of very real needs that HTML doesn't meet, and work to incorporate those solutions in HTML. Regards, Colin Lieberman Andy Mabbett wrote: > In message <op.toc4lon97a8kvn at hp-a0a83fcd39d2>, Simon Pieters > <zcorpan at gmail.com> writes > > >> should <address> be more general-purpose? >> > > what benefit would that have, over the "adr" microformat? > > <http://microformats.org/wiki/adr> > > The latter has better granularity, allowing for street-address, > locality, region, country and postcode, for example, to be marked up > separately. > >
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 11:58:16 UTC