Re: [uf-new] PROPOSAL: Replace hAudio FN with TITLE

2008-02-15 Thread Tim White
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Manu Sporny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, you are correct. Usually, each Microformat states how this should be handled. So far, the general parsing rule has been use whatever value you hit first if the Microformat can only have one value for the given

Re: [uf-new] PROPOSAL: Replace hAudio FN with TITLE

2008-02-15 Thread Andy Mabbett
On Fri, February 15, 2008 12:59, Tim White quoted: On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Manu Sporny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, you are correct. Usually, each Microformat states how this should be handled. So far, the general parsing rule has been use whatever value you hit first if the

Re: [uf-new] PROPOSAL: Replace hAudio FN with TITLE

2008-02-15 Thread Guillaume Lebleu
Chuck Allen wrote: Sarven Capadisli wrote: AUDIO-TITLE would be the next logical option. A completely peanut gallery comment from someone has been following this thread -- One would think that as Microformats flourish across other domain areas, you'll run into this again. So thinking about

Re: [uf-new] PROPOSAL: Replace hAudio FN with TITLE

2008-02-15 Thread Chuck Allen
Sarven Capadisli wrote: AUDIO-TITLE would be the next logical option. A completely peanut gallery comment from someone has been following this thread -- One would think that as Microformats flourish across other domain areas, you'll run into this again. So thinking about a rationale/approach

Re: [uf-new] PROPOSAL: Replace hAudio FN with TITLE

2008-02-15 Thread Ben Ward
OK, this is getting a bit wild. Can everyone please take a little stock. I shall try to lay out what I see are the ‘facts’ of this situation, which are being debated at length, but can't actually be altered. So: • ‘title’ is specified as something else. • ‘fn’ is perceived as too generic