Brian Suda wrote: > --- firstly, microformats are not a "how should we do this" it is more > of a "how are things already being done?"
Option #2 is how it is already being done. The options were more about if we wanted to generalize the scope of the hAudio Microformat. It was to see if anybody had a preference and why... > Your use of audio-album could cause problems later in the semantic > meaning, iTunes has many celebrity playlists, which are not actually > ALBUMS, but are a collection of related songs. The term podcast seems > very 2005, in 4 years will we still use 'podcats' maybe, maybe not? We're not concerned with what might happen in the future. We're concerned with what's already there - the cow paths. The two major types of grouping in the audio-examples are podcasts and albums. > What ever happened to working on the media-format? The media-format was far too broad of a problem - that's why it hasn't moved forward in two years even though there are a great number of examples of marking up media on the web. It is far easier to break the problem up into audio, video and images and tackle those individually: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-April/000143.html In the end we might come up with a grand Microformat that covers audio, video and images. Although, even that goes against some of the concepts of Microformats - solving simple problems, defining simple Microformats, etc. > this seems like a > similar problem to DVD chapters, and other multi-media issues? Those are different problems - we aren't addressing those problems with this Microformat. We have a very specific problem statement for audio-info: http://microformats.org/wiki/audio-info-examples#The_Problem We should stick to the small problem and solve that - not make it bigger and more complicated (boiling the oceans). > I would also prefer that these property names NOT be hypenated. Why > not just use something like: media/track? then you could use 'track' > independantly of album/media, and album/media potentially independant > of track? for instance, discographies/videographies/DVD, that lists > just albums and films. Could you expand on this idea please? I want to make sure I understand you correctly. I'm fine with the concept of non-hyphenated names, are you suggesting something along the lines of: album description haudio track haudio track haudio > Last i remember the hAudio proposal basically broke down to just an > hReview with a price and a running time. The semantics of audio-info are very different from the semantics of a review. The following are required for audio info (based on the analysis and brainstorming done by this list): fn, contributor, published-date, rel-sample (samples), rel-enclosure (full versions), rel-payment (purchase option), image-summary, category, duration, and price - hardly any of those overlap with hReview. -- manu _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
