One of the main drivers behind uf is that they build on
existing tools
and knowledge. Using existing html markup means people can
use WYSIWYG
tools to edit them and it also removes a small psychological
for people
who are comfortable with html but put off by such syntax. uf
also aims
to solve simple and common problems, like events and contact
info.
If you want more funtionality you can use things like eRDF.
Tatsuya Noyori wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to suggest that microformats use namespace
like the
> following example.
>
> <span xmlns="http://www.w3.org/
1999/xhtml"
> xmlns:mf="http://microfo
rmats.org/2007">
> <span mf:term="tel" mf:scheme="http
://microformats.org/2007/hcard.rng">
> <span
mf:term="type">home</span>
> <span
mf:term="value">+1.415.555.1212</span>
> </span>
> </span>
>
> This example is just using  mf:scheme and mf:term
instead of
> xhtml:class or xhtml:rel.
>
> Therefore, this example is human readable and machine
readable. And, by using
> namespace and a link to schema(mf:scheme), This example is
able to be
> valid by using validator and
> schema(http://microfo
rmats.org/2007/hcard.rnc).
>
> I think microformats need namespace to ensure
interoperability.
>
> How do you think about the suggestion?
>
>
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
|
