On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 12:16 -0700, Joe Andrieu wrote: > > Monday, June 11, 2007 11:55 AM, Martin McEvoy wrote > > On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 12:22 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote: > > > I am proposing that we use 'audio-title' and leave it at that. I'll > > > work this into the haudio proposal at the end of this week unless > > > there is strong opposition to this proposal. > > > > I preferred work-title if we are going to invent a new microformat. > > > > "work-title of an audio recording is a short textual > > description used to identify the work among interested > > parties. This is also referred to as the title of the work. > > This can be the title of a speech, song title, or short > > description regarding a sound effect." > > > > At least it's more likely to be re-used in other microformats > > Actually, it is quite likely to be used in the work of art uF under > discussion. > > But I that is actually the problem. What if I have a speech about a work of > art? Or an audio-tour of the Louvre? Embedded > hWorkOfArt in those hAudio now have name conflicts.
OK? > > Audio is audio, no? > > Speech, song, sound effect. "audio-title" seems to fit with all of those, > without losing specificity and without overlapping with > other potential "works". > > I agree with Scott that solving the embedding problem /generally/ would be > preferable. However, I think audio-title is better than > work-title, both because of overlap and because I think it more accurately > addresses the currently scoped problem of marking up a > piece of audio. ...why not! I really don't have a preference any more, as long as everyone else agrees its fine by me. -Martin- > > -j > > -- > Joe Andrieu > SwitchBook Software > http://www.switchbook.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +1 (805) 705-8651 >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
