[dknauss]

As a page renders, each bibliography entry now becomes an h-cite. IndieWeb tools (Webmention receivers, readers and other microformats parsers) can then read the bibliography as a list of citations.

Each one carries:

• its title
• each author as an h-card, linked to the author's ORCID iD when there is one; organizations get p-org
• the date, to the precision the record has (2018, 2018-05 or 2018-05-14, never an invented month or day)
• the DOI as https://doi.org/… (u-uid)
• the URL
• the journal or book it appears in (p-publication)
• the publisher

The values sit in a hidden span of <data> elements built from the stored CSL-JSON, the same source as the JSON-LD and COinS. The visible entry, and what screen readers announce, don't change. Like the other render-time enrichments, save() is untouched (includes/microformats.php, priority 11), so there's no deprecation, and published posts get the markup without being re-saved. Feeds skip it, and the email output strips it. The new bibliography_builder_enrich_microformats filter turns it off.

This implements the "Microformats" item from SPEC.md's roadmap. The citations in #256 are already marked h-cite and point at these entries.

How it was checked

• New MicroformatsTest (10 tests, 34 assertions). The full PHPUnit suite (723 tests), PHPCS and Psalm pass, and verify-metrics.sh is updated and passes.
• I rendered a post in WordPress Playground (WP 7.1.4, PHP 8.3) and parsed it with php-mf2. Each entry came out as an h-cite with the expected name, authors (including a particle, an ORCID and an organization), date, uid/url, publication and publisher. The RSS feed had no microformats markup.
• The start tag is read with a quote-aware regex, because WP_HTML_Tag_Processor can't insert markup and the PHPUnit bootstrap has no copy of it. CLAUDE.md notes this.

npm ci fails on main because package-lock.json is out of step with package.json (eslint 10 in the lock, 9 wanted). That's not this PR's doing, but it's worth fixing.

Merge order: this branch, #256 (citations) and the other new Borges PR touch the same docs (CHANGELOG.md, SPEC.md, README.md, readme.txt) and the line counts in docs/current-metrics.md. Whichever merges later needs a rebase and a re-run of verify-metrics.sh. No version is bumped, so merging releases nothing.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 98.11321% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.47%. Comparing base (b11d72b) to head (a3de73d).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
includes/microformats.php	98.05%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #257      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     89.38%   89.47%   +0.08%     
  Complexity       67       67              
============================================
  Files            94       95       +1     
  Lines         10303    10409     +106     
  Branches        816      816              
============================================
+ Hits           9209     9313     +104     
- Misses          410      412       +2     
  Partials        684      684              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[dknauss]

@codex review

---

Generated by Claude Code

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-06T15:06:35.034491Z	a3de73d	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Another round soon, please!

Reviewed commit: a3de73d80c

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".