On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 20:10 +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote: > 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>
Seems like you are NOT making your point [1] http://tinyurl.com/2vzag4 [2] http://tinyurl.com/2jvbms [3] http://tinyurl.com/2lj5x2 [4] http://tinyurl.com/2lbs9a [5] http://tinyurl.com/343jjy [6] http://tinyurl.com/2tc9ch I could go on all night giving you different examples of different meanings of "TRACK", I hope I don't have to. Am I making My point? Thanks Martin > _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
