adding h-* to an e-* property loses the "html:" key

[tantek]

Compare how it parses:

<div class="h-entry"><div class="e-content"><p>Hello</p></div></div>

to how it parses:

<div class="h-entry"><div class="h-card e-content"><p>Hello</p></div></div>

Note that in the second example the "html:" key inside content is lost for no reason.

[tantek]

Expected result:

{
    "items": [
        {
            "type": [
                "h-entry"
            ],
            "properties": {
                "content": [
                    {
                        "type": [
                            "h-card"
                        ],
                        "properties": {
                            "name": [
                                "Hello"
                            ]
                        },
                        "html": "<p>Hello<\/p>",
                        "value": "Hello"
                    }
                ],
                "name": [
                    "Hello"
                ]
            }
        }
    ],
    "rels": {}
}

[barnabywalters]

Working on adding this now, where exactly is this made explicit in the parsing spec though? Reading through http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats2-parsing I cannot see where this is specified, unless it was missed out from "else if it's an e-* property element, re-use its { } structure with existing value: inside". Should that line read "else if it's an e-* property element, re-use its { } structure with existing value: and html: inside"

I also find the “re-use it’s {} structure” language here a little problematic. Reading the spec it appears to suggest that parsing <div class="h-entry"><span class="p-author h-card">Author Name</span></div> should result in a h-entry microformat structure with two values for the author property, a string (from the “parse a child element for property class names” step) and also a child microformat (from the “parse a child element for microformats” step). This is of course not the case. I find the parsing spec as it is currently written confusing because of this.

[barnabywalters]

@tantek out of interest, can you remember if there was a real world example which prompted this? I’d be interested to see if if so.