- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 13:03:34 -0700
- To: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
On May 17, 2007, at 4:00 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> It's true that many of the complex microformats have a root class >> name, and multiple included structural elements identified by >> class="" or rel="" values. However, there are many trivial >> microformats based solely on a single rel value, such as >> rel="nofollow". (The rel-nofollow microformat is adopted directly >> into HTML5, I believe without controversy - people don't seem to >> worry about rel as much as class.) > > I think the difference is that rel already has predefined names; > the point of class was that it didn't (and so authors could use any > name without fear of unwanted side-effects). Is that really the key difference? rel also left remaining names free for author use. Is moving from 0 to 1 predefined names really a much bigger deal than moving from N to N+1? > > Also, "rel=nofollow" almost seems too simple to be a microformat. > Is "autocomplete=off" a microformat too? We seem to be stretching > the definition of "microformat" quite a long way, such that it is > losing meaning. > The original topic was semantic use of class names. For that, my most relevant example was class="geo" which you snipped. I don't think that anyone would dispute that it is a semantic use of a class name, and a microformat based on just a single class name. Debating what is and is not a microformat is not very germane to the discussion. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:03:52 UTC