(I had to restrain myself from Subject: hReview Review)
In general, I like hReview a lot, and it fits the use case I'm working on nicely.
However, it's currently too restrictive in a couple of places; in particular, it requires the reviewer and the date reviewed to be explicitly included in the content. While I understand that this information is useful -- or even required -- for some uses of hReview, it may not be for others.
For example, a review's author might be inferred from the Web site it's hosted on. The date of the review could be inferred from the HTTP Last-Modified header, it could be unknown, or it could be irrelevant (e.g., a review of a recipe).
In general, I don't think that formats that are to be used on the open Web should have lots of mandatory fields; it raises the bar for authoring them (as well as repurposing existing data to them), and ends up restricting how people use them, because of the unforeseen consequences of doing so. I think this is the biggest mistake we made in Atom; rather than making it an open format, we required a bunch of elements that really weren't always required.
Anyway, keep up the good work, and please make these fields optional. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
