On 6/7/07, Manu Sporny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ideally, we would be using 'title' - why can't we do that, again? Because hcard uses it?
--- because the semantics of TITLE have already been defined as something else. It is irrelevant that hCard uses it, the semantics are not what you intend. TITLE: Job title or functional position of the object. http://microformats.org/wiki/classes
When the proposal started out, as Martin pointed out in an earlier discussion, we started with 'work-title'. What are the arguments against using 'title'? The only one that I can think of is "hcard already uses it".
--- because the semantics of TITLE are already defined. Work-title unnecessarily re-defines the semantics of FN and SUMAMRY so there is no need for it. Point 4 in the process[1] says you should be aware of microformats naming principles when choosing names. Please make yourself aware of the process. If we are going to get through this proposal, you MUST read the process and understand it. This means being aware of other microformats in general and what properties they defined and how they impact your proposal as a whole. There is also the archives of this thread where these were already discussed. Tue May 8 13:20:56 PDT 2007, Manu Sporny msporny at digitalbazaar.com came to the conclusion that 'work-title' was not needed, you can read that discussion here: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-May/000353.html -brian [1] - http://microformats.org/wiki/process -- brian suda http://suda.co.uk _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
