On Thu, February 7, 2008 15:37, Scott Reynen wrote: > On Feb 7, 2008, at 4:59 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > >>> If it's just a generic contact that you know nothing about, I'd say >>> just use fn, as adding org is potentially incorrect information. But if >>> you know it's a music act, I think it makes sense to consider even an >>> individual performer's name to be an organization name in that >>> context. I'd say there's >>> a difference, for example, between Norah Jones the person, who would be >>> <span class="fn">Norah Jones</span>, and Norah Jones the musical >>> act, which would be <span class="fn org">Norah Jones</span>. </snip> >> >> That strikes me as no more sensible now than it did then. If I cite >> her, as "Norah Jones said", am I referring to her as a person, or an >> organisation? > > Note I started that suggestion with "if it's just a generic contact > that you know nothing about..."
Which you then followed with "But if you know it's a music act" > So in that context, there's no possible > answer to your questions. I wasn't suggesting we treat all musicians as > organizations when we *do* know they're individuals, just that our default > assumption of musical acts is that they're organizations. If you mean that in the context of "a musical act, where the publisher doesn't know whether that's a person or a group", then I agree that that would be the better default (in that no third, more ambiguous, distinction is yet available); but I don't think that that is how others are representing your suggestion. -- Andy Mabbett ** via webmail ** _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss