On 4/12/06, Jude Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would it be appropriate to add this to > http://microformats.org/wiki/chat-examples under a tentative "*might be > relevant to chat*" "podcast transcripts" heading?
Sure. It's a kind of chat... though I wonder if there isn't some distinction to be made between aural and text-based chats? > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/lists.html#h-10.3, > > yeah, i know, it actually says, right there in the > > 4.01 spec, that DL's might be used to mark up > > dialog, but dialog isn't a definition, is it? i > > don't like it. but that's just me. > > I agree entirely. Think it very odd and reckon <cite> and > <q>/<blockquote> more appropriate. Don't understand the dl suggestion at > all. I disagree, but then I've always been a fan of DLs. The problem that I see with only using <q> <cite> and <bq> is that they're ways of loosely pairing a speaker and what they've said. I don't know of any way to closely couple the two. At least with DT and DD there's a clear correlation for the speaker with her/his words: speaker 1: something that speaker 1 said speaker 2: something that speaker 2 said > <tangent>Would it be correct to use hCard for the people in a > transcript, or am I jumping the gun/plain wrong?</tangent> That's the intended "building block" design of microformats... so yes, absolutely! Chris _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
