- From: Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:32:17 +0100
Five days ago I wrote: > No META value will *ever* become a microformat; the very concept of > invisible metadata is anathema to microformats?it's impossible for a > META keyword value to pass the microformats process. > > Should everything on the wiki page be marked as "unendorsed" or, > more realistically, should the conditions for acceptance be altered? I've updated the wiki page for META values, removing the reference to the microformats process. http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/MetaExtensions#Process Meanwhile, back on the Rel values wiki page... http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions Can anyone help with either of my questions: > 1. Should I change all of the values derived from XFN from > "proposal" to "accepted" as they seem to fit this criteria? > > 2. I don't think passing the buck to the microformats community is > necessarily a good idea. There are perfectly good values listed > (e.g. rel="accessibility") that would/should probably never become a > microformat but are still good semantic values. Will they really be > rejected outright? Thanks in advance, Jeremy -- Jeremy Keith a d a c t i o http://adactio.com/
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 03:32:17 UTC