On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 14:20 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote: > > This is the start of an argument for namespaces: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namespace
I think microformats already DO support limited namespaces, not fully loaded namespaces like RDFa does, but kind of micro-namespaces, its difficult for me to explain what I mean but here goes... "...since we were reusing the semantics of the IETF Atom standard, we very much wanted to reuse the vocabulary as well to minimize confusion and mean precisely the same semantics as defined in the Atom RFC 4287, and thus a few of the hAtom properties appear to be prefixed (entry-title, entry-content, entry-summary) in order to literally reuse those terms from the RFC (title, content, summary)." http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom-faq#Why_does_hAtom_use_class_name_namespaces Interesting I think? This Is why earlier in the tread I suggested we use "audio-title" it is mimicking the concept of "entry-title" hAudio does not follow any RFC standard like hAtom does, but in my view it does in a way because it is being built to a Microformats standard using the "process". hAudio will (eventually) be an audio "standard" so it makes sense to use a class namespace like "audio-[...]". What do you think? Martin McEvoy _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
