In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>We can't expect people to use precise measurements for quantities, nor >even to explicitly mark up the order of their steps in anything more >than flowing paragraphs. But we can allow them to. >Talk on the brainstorming page about being used for recipes for spells >in computer games, or for making bombs seems silly to me. Perhaps, but then life isn't black-and-white. I'm sure no-one would object to such a microformat being used for a recipe, for, say, a fat-based cake to feed birds. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/features/2002/12/winter_birds.shtml> What about making glue from flour: <http://www.recipegoldmine.com/childsticky/flour-water-paste.html> (note that that's one a recipe website) or making dye from Woad: <http://www.nufasite.com/instructionsRecipes/woad.html> Fact is, once such a microformat is available, people will use it for whatever recipes they see fit, whatever our intentions. [...] >> Source (Book Title etc) > >Again, I'm not sure if there's a strong case for this. It just be >cited in the Summary of the recipe, using a future citeation >microformat if/when one exists. I maintain that we should build the re-usable microformats (measurement, currency, citation) first; then those that will use them. >> Measurement System (U.S., Imperial etc) > >I don't see this being useful. Recipes do not use consistent >measurements: There are combinations of metric weights and approximate >‘handfuls’ and ‘pinches’. Some recipes publish both metric and >imperial measurements alongside each other. In that case, perhaps only one system should be microformatted, to avoid confusing parsers? >> Ingredients (each one a separate "item" rather than block text >with count/amount/range/unit broken out too) > >‘Ingredient’ is pretty clear to me. The sub-parts are woolier though, >as follows: Imagine you want a parser to compile a shopping list based on a selection of recipes; or that you want to provide a web service with a list of the potential ingredients you have to hand; and for it to return suitable recipes? In those cases, "four eggs" is more meaningful than "eggs"; and "500g sugar" is more meaningful than "sugar". >> Units need separate microformat: see measure > >No it doesn't! One day there might be a dedicated measurement format >but right now there isn't. See above. >> Ingredient Preparation: such as diced, chopped, sliced, grated, >minced, etc. >> Ingredient importance (e.g. Main, Required, Optional) should be >listed as an attribute of each entry. > >I think all of this is trying to get too specific. Whether an ingredients is optional or required is important (again, consider the "ingredients to hand" use case). >> Meal Category (Starter, entree, dessert ) >> Cuisine Category (Italian etc) > >Tags. Is there any evidence that people who publish recipes at the moment, and use such categories, make those categories into links? >> Instructions (text, but can contain:) >> Steps (optional) >> Should be an ordered list Andy Mabbett 14:46, 16 Nov 2006 (PST) >> Another vote for an ordered list, perhaps in the XOXO format. ? > >I don't think this needs to be as explicit as this. Note that my comment was "should" not "must". >I think that from a publication point of view, the best we can hope >for as a mandatory field here is ‘method’. Yes; but with optional "method-step" (or whatever). -- Andy Mabbett _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
