On Feb 15, 2008, at 9:42 PM, Scott Reynen wrote:
On Feb 15, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Ben Ward wrote:
For my 2¢, I think the ‘audio-title’ route is OK
I agree. I was just looking back over how we got here on this
issue, and I'm afraid it may be largely my fault. When AUDIO-TITLE
was widely
On Feb 15, 2008 7:34 PM, Ben Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'Title' came from vcard, and trying to bodge its semantics into
hAudio is just going to create a mess.
Regarding FN, I happen to agree. It's very generic and works in place
of something-called-title, but the name is unintuitive. I
Almost forgot one point:
FN is required by hCard. 'Title' is not required.
I would argue that a *required* attribute is off limits to other
formats more than an optional attribute.
Tim
On Feb 16, 2008 8:56 AM, Tim White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 15, 2008 7:34 PM, Ben Ward [EMAIL
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
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
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
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
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
2008/2/13, Martin McEvoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If we are referring to objects not people they do not have
job-titles so we must be referring to the functional title of of the
object eg:
--- I don´t think we can say MUST be referring too. We do not know the
intent of the vCard authors.
hcard
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 08:29 +, Brian Suda wrote:
2008/2/13, Martin McEvoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If we are referring to objects not people they do not have
job-titles so we must be referring to the functional title of of the
object eg:
--- I don´t think we can say MUST be referring
Can we make a microformats-old group to endlessly discuss things
that were settled more than 12 months ago?
--
David Janes
Founder, BlogMatrix
http://www.blogmatrix.com
http://www.onaswarm.com
http://www.onamine.com
___
microformats-new mailing list
On Thu, February 14, 2008 13:12, David Janes wrote:
Can we make a microformats-old group to endlessly discuss things
that were settled more than 12 months ago?
First you'd need to define settled.
--
Andy Mabbett
** via webmail **
___
Some of this was already mentioned but here are my thoughts for
whatever it's worth:
I think that FN is more likely to cause a conflict then TITLE for
audio title simply because FN is more likely ('must' have in hCard) to
occur in hCard then TITLE if and where hAudio uses FN instead of
TITLE.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Martin McEvoy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 18:30 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
That is a very wise interjection... I agree, we should be asking is
it
safe to say TITLE means title?
Yes it is.
hcard broke itself when it was decided that title should
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Without weighing in on this issue, I'd like to interject a meta-note:
While the two are loosely related, was it good to say TITLE means job
title? is now a useless question, whereas is it safe to say TITLE
means title? is a
Hello Ryan
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 17:46 -0800, Ryan King wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Martin McEvoy wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 18:30 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
That is a very wise interjection... I agree, we should be asking is
it
safe to say TITLE means title?
Yes it is.
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian
Suda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
2008/2/12, Manu Sporny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
After a week, there have been 4 supporting e-mails for the hAudio TITLE
instead of FN proposal, and 0 opposing e-mails, I have updated the
hAudio specification to note the use of TITLE
Brian Suda wrote:
2008/2/12, Martin McEvoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 07:33 +, Brian Suda wrote:
--- WOW, after 6 days we have made a community wide change effecting 3
years of effort with only 4 people weighing in! I am sorry i haven't
been timely enough to offer my
On Feb 12, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Martin McEvoy wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 18:30 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
That is a very wise interjection... I agree, we should be asking is
it
safe to say TITLE means title?
Yes it is.
hcard broke itself when it was decided that title should be
defined
as
Without weighing in on this issue, I'd like to interject a meta-note:
While the two are loosely related, was it good to say TITLE means job
title? is now a useless question, whereas is it safe to say TITLE
means title? is a useful question. In the interest of progressing
the discussion,
Scott Reynen wrote:
Without weighing in on this issue, I'd like to interject a meta-note:
While the two are loosely related, was it good to say TITLE means job
title? is now a useless question, whereas is it safe to say TITLE
means title? is a useful question. In the interest of progressing
Ryan King wrote:
Type special notes: This type is based on the X.520 Title attribute.
Type example:
TITLE:Director\, Research and Development
I can't seem to find any source for the semantics of X.520's title.
For those that are unfamiliar with X.520, it is an:
...
2008/2/12, Martin McEvoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 07:33 +, Brian Suda wrote:
--- WOW, after 6 days we have made a community wide change effecting 3
years of effort with only 4 people weighing in! I am sorry i haven't
been timely enough to offer my thoughts.
--- i
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 07:33 +, Brian Suda wrote:
--- WOW, after 6 days we have made a community wide change effecting 3
years of effort with only 4 people weighing in! I am sorry i haven't
been timely enough to offer my thoughts.
Which are?...
Just because no one publicly disagrees
2008/2/12, Manu Sporny [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
After a week, there have been 4 supporting e-mails for the hAudio TITLE
instead of FN proposal, and 0 opposing e-mails, I have updated the
hAudio specification to note the use of TITLE instead of FN:
http://microformats.org/wiki/haudio
--- WOW, after
Manu Sporny wrote:
The reasons for this change include:
- TITLE is more semantically accurate, we are trying to describe the
title of the audio recording.
- TITLE makes more sense to Microformats newbies than FN does.
- There can be conflicts between hAudio FN and hCard FN - these
Manu Sporny wrote:
If you are in support of this proposal, please speak up, even if it is a
+1. If you are opposed to this proposal, please let us know the
reasoning to your opposition.
Someone has e-mailed me asking that I clarify this last bit. It should
have probably read:
If you are in
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 13:06 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
It is difficult for Microformat newbies to understand the reasoning
behind the choice of FN for hAudio titles. Similarly, its semantic
meaning is questionable when used with hAudio to name song, album and
audio recording title's in general.
Martin McEvoy wrote:
PS: Its interesting to note that Title's in classical music generally
get their names from the sheet music titles, cant find any reliable
sources that say this, but I would say kind of relevant.
Not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you elaborate?
Guillaume
It is difficult for Microformat newbies to understand the reasoning
behind the choice of FN for hAudio titles. Similarly, its semantic
meaning is questionable when used with hAudio to name song, album and
audio recording title's in general.
There does not seem to be any legacy issues with using
30 matches
Mail list logo
