In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Justin
Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:18 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>> Do we have any evidence that people, in the wild, are using "choon"
>>to refer to individual pieces of music, on their web pages? No.
>
>Unless of course by "no," you mean "yes."
I meant "no"; that's why I typed "no".
Note that I said "do we have", in the (then) present tense.
[...]
>feel free to throw the words "playlist," "album," "set," and any other
>appropriate context in which "choons" might be "rinsed" in there for
>good measure...
Sure. Google finds:
about 272,000 for choon +album
about 99,000,000 for track +album
and:
about 83,200 for choon +opera
about 6,820,000 for track +opera
(none of at least the first few pages of the former seems to
relate "choon" to Opera in the classical sense)
and:
3 for "choon 1" +"choon 2" +album
about 867,000 for "track 1" +"track 2" +album
(none of the former seems to be from a list of
sequentially-numbered "choons")
Does anyone still favour "choon" over "track"?
--
Andy Mabbett
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
