#tantekor do you think that behavior is desirable?
#kylewmit's hard to say, we don't really know how people are going to use the "value" property yet
#tantekthat's not true - aaronpk finally figured out that's what he needed to be using (instead of writing hacks) - though I forgot the precise use-case
#kylewmright, the precise use-case is webmentions, you get "in-reply-to" and expect it to be a list of strings
#kylewmand you can just grab the "value" property of the object
#tantekthat would seem to imply that flatter is better
#kylewmso if you get a "content", expect it to be a list of objects with "html" and "value" and instead get a list of objects with arbitrary properties + value
#kylewmin the flatter case, you might use the object not even realizing it's an h-card
#kylewmso i guess that's the use-case i think we need to understand -- when would you want "e-* h-*"
chiui joined the channel
#tantekthat's a good question - I can't think of any off the top of my head
#tantekhmm - perhaps that webmentions "in-reply-to" use-case is why we decided that "u-in-reply-to h-cite" made more sense? and then the rule about the value of a u-* property with a nested object coming from the u-url of that nested object?
#tantekre: "depends if that is desireable" - I think the answer is yes, it is.
#tantekthus for an "e-content", you get a list of objects with "html" and "value", and if one of them has nested microformats, then that object also has "type" and "properties" for that nested object.
#tantekseems like a pretty smooth enhancement for the nested object case, without disturbing those clients that are just looking at objects with "html" and "value"
fuzzyhorns joined the channel
#tantekedited /microformats2-parsing (+118) "/* parse an element for class microformats */ make it explicit that e-* h-* re-uses the e-* { value:"" } structure (insetad of creating another level of { } structure) - per question/point from kylewm" (view diff)