Ryan King wrote: > On Feb 15, 2008, at 9:42 PM, Scott Reynen wrote: > > This sounds like a good way forward to me. Any reason why audio-title > shouldn't be reconsidered?
I'd like Ben Ward and Brian Suda to clarify their positions before we move on. Of those that have given their position on FN vs. TITLE, Brian and Ben are the only ones that were opposed to the idea of using TITLE. I'm attempting to arrange a phone call with each of them to understand their positions in more depth. Namely: - What exactly will be hurt by generalizing TITLE's definition? - How could this break hCard? If the decision is between AUDIO-TITLE and TITLE, I'd still argue for TITLE. IMHO, it is easier to author, can be re-used, makes more sense to those new to Microformats, and is still coherent with the English language. We must be fair to all involved in this discussion. I believe that we have learned much by talking about this, and should let Brian and Ben respond before we move on. Namely, because this decision is dependent on their responses. :) -- manu _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
