In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Justin Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>"Track" is familiar and common. >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. What do you mean by "there is no 'track' in data"? I thought we created microformats by looking at evidence, not considering personal opinions and supposition about what may be understood at dome unknown point in the future. If people refer to a songs or other recording as a "track" - as the evidence [1] shows they do - then we should use that. [1] - <http://tinyurl.com/yvekd2> <http://tinyurl.com/ywg8qu> <http://tinyurl.com/2kq96z> -- Andy Mabbett _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
