NAME appears to be a better solution then TITLE, FN, or something along the lines of a prefixed "object class term" (e.g., AUDIO-TITLE).
* No conflicts with hCard (since this was one of the issues we had previously) * No prefixes or the whole namespace dilemmas. * Reusable for other media type formats (e.g., video title) and objects. Based on the definitions of "name", NAME would be appropriate to *distinguish* one object from another. Is this in any way create a conflict (perhaps a misconception) if the hAudio object were to contain multiple NAMEs? (re: http://microformats.org/wiki/haudio-cheatsheet#Properties states that TITLE may occur more than once). Hope that made sense. -Sarven On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello All > > This is to try and help the stalled hAudio Title Issue > http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2008-February/001532.html > > hAudio title is an Issue because its meaning is not the same as the > hcard definition a "job title" unless the title attribute in haudio > means "Job title" we cant use it because microformats describe single > precise instances and do not have the ability to disambiguate... there > are probably more reasons but the above is a good reason why a solution > should be found, the development and adoption of the haudio microformat > can not realistically continue until this issue is resolved. > > So I have been spending some time recently studying the audio info > examples pages asking How Many of the examples use the word "Title" to > mean an audio title? we want to call this thing "title" lets find some > hard evidence? > http://microformats.org/wiki/audio-info-examples > > Out of 54 working examples > 20 use the word or have the word Title in markup 37% > 34 use just song, track or nothing in markup 63% > > As you can see there is no clear cut 80/20 result, so the action may be > at this point to choose what would seem to be second best and choose > "title" but 63% of the examples are doing something else, In most cases > nothing meaningful just naming things. > > Alternative use "NAME" instead of "TITLE" as this seems to be what the > majority of the examples are doing simply naming the objects. > > name http://www.answers.com/name&r=67 > "1, A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished > from others." > > good... > > Name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name > "A name is a label for a human or animal, thing, place, product (as in a > brand name) and even an idea or concept, normally used to distinguish > one from another. Names can identify a class or category of things, or a > single thing, either uniquely, or within a given context." > > better... > > possible microformats definition > > name - A label for the object or thing, contents are a short textual > description of the object or thing. > > hmm! ...that's just my deffinition :) > > I have dumped all my notes on why "name" may be more desirable than > "title" in a single text file which may make interesting reading > > http://tinyurl.com/yt7g4u > > Its interesting to add that a "name" microformat may enhance the "n" > definition on http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-classes > where it says "The name of the unit" name can be hyperlinked to the > "name" definition of "A short textual description of the object or > thing" > > I dont know if any of the above helps, It may even muddy the waters more > comments feedback would be nice. > > Thanks all > > Martin McEvoy > > > _______________________________________________ > microformats-new mailing list > [email protected] > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new > _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
