"Track" is familiar and common. I believe I'd even recommended its use at one time. However, it's nothing more than a distortion of meaning through popular usage -- "tracks" in a vinyl record (similar to the use of "patch" for electronic musical instrumentation stemming from the days of patch cables). The CD industry picked up this term as well as it replies to physical sectors on the disc itself. However, there is no "track" in data and we should eliminate an unnecessary literal abstraction (one that will eventually require explanation) by calling it as such. So, as unfamiliar as it is to my ears, I recommend "item" for this role.
I second that. Item is better in my opinion. Imagine you mark up the different movements of classical music or something like that. Would you call them track? (Well, maybe you would, but, uh, anyway ;)) Or implement another movement property? Or parts of speeches, stuff like that.
I know I’ve been in favour of track just a couple of days ago, but I didn’t see the implications of this. I vote for item. Would also be nice to have as a generic container microformat, as mentioned here before.
_______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
