Martin McEvoy wrote: >> PS: Andy, Martin - I'm just as frustrated with this approach as I'm sure >> both of you are, especially since it was deemed that we couldn't change >> TITLE from hCard... but now we're changing the meaning, quite blatantly, >> for ITEM. > > Hi Manu very thorough summary can you clarify one thing for me > How are we quite blatantly changing the meaning for ITEM? > > [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/item
I should have ended my statement with "Let's not argue core Microformat principles, but instead focus on the issue at hand: naming". :) I'm not referring to the hItem proposal you linked to, Martin. hItem is a non-issue since it isn't anywhere close to the Draft stage in the Microformats process. Instead, I was referring to the definitions for ITEM that already exist. ITEM is defined in both hReview and hListing. I copy/pasted the contents of these definitions at the start of this thread. >From what I understand, it is one of those unwritten Microformats principles that we don't change the definitions of Microformat properties. I think you remember the TITLE discussion for hAudio: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-June/000511.html Andy has also pointed out that we would be re-writing/re-purposing the Microformat semantics of ITEM, which has previously been taboo. You have traditionally disagreed with the definition of TITLE (as defined in hCard) as well. I was merely stating that we should overlook the flip-flop that the community is doing and examine if ITEM is a good choice. In other words - let's assume the prior definition that I stated earlier in this thread for ITEM and go from there. -- manu _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
