[uf-discuss] hCard implementation check please; plus use of common attribute

Mon Jun 5 11:31:16 PDT 2006

On Jun 2, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> In message <9195CDA6-131E-4283-B9D3-0D11880B7E33 at technorati.com>, Ryan
> King <ryan at technorati.com> writes
>>>> http://microformats.org/wiki/include-pattern
>>>>>> Thank you. I'm troubled by the (ab)use of the "object" tag - what
>>> object
>>> is being embedded, in such cases?
>>>> The referenced node.
>> But it's not being embedded, is it? It's merely referenced.

In terms of markup, those are one-in-the-same. User-agents can choose 
to embed the resource that's referenced.
>>> I'm also troubled by the exhortation:
>>>>>> To avoid unsightly messes in Safari, you should include the
>>> following style rule in a style sheet for the page:
>>>>>> object.include { width:0; height:0 }
>>>> Safari doesn't handle object elements correctly.
>> what would be "correct"?

Well, for one, it could give it a width other than 200px (for images 
it'd be nice to use intrinsic size), for one.
>>> and the effect on the page of not including something similar, when
>>> viewed using FireFox 1.5 (which has vast areas of white psace0 or 
>>> ie6
>>> (which has markers not unlike those for missing images) - see:
>>>>>> http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/club/executiveVCARD.htm
>>>>>> and compare with the original:
>>>>>> http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/club/executive.htm
>>>> Right, you should certainly apply the above styling to all browsers,
>> as they each have their own difficulties with object elements.
>> And what about agents with no CSS capability? The method smacks of 
> being
> a kludge.

That's exactly what it is– a kludge.
However, I don't think it semantic abuse of the object element, nor 
do I believe we have any better options at this point. However, if 
you think of a better approach, then that'd be great.
thanks,
ryan