It is my duty to point out that this issue comes up every six months.
In the past, it has always been tabled for a variety of reasons. Maybe
this will be the last time I exercise this office.
As someone who consumes ufs, my +1 is for a top-level, generic scoping
class of a single name used in conjunction with other classes for non-
scoping semantics.
~Derrick • iPhone
On Sep 1, 2008, at 5:34 PM, "Tantek Celik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Martin,
I agree with you that this is a larger issue impacting existing and
new microformats, however, trying to come up with new names for the
same meaning is not the answer, and will quickly fall apart.
We likely need to come up with scoping rules for all microformats
like (just thinking out loud here, please do not implement) - some
options:
1. any class name starting with an "h" should be treated as a root
microformat which introduces a new scope
2. introduce a root microformat classname like "hroot" or "hitem"
which introduces a new scope and require its use in addition to any
new microformat root class name (eg class="hitem haudio") this is
essentially the mfo solution but with a friendlier generic root
name. Feel free to brainstorm additional friendly generic root names.
3. same as 2 except don't introduce any other root microformat-
specific class names, and use some other mechanism to specify what
type/kind of microformat the item is. E.g. all new microformats
would start with class="hitem" and then we come up with another way
of "typing" them.
4 ... ? Additional suggestions?
I'm on my BB enroute in the airport and would prefer to add this to
the wiki (will do once I reach my destination, or feel free to do so
- perhaps on a new page since it is a cross-microformat issue e.g. /
wiki/root-brainstorming ) but I felt this issue was important enough
to share a few of these thoughts immediately. Again these are just
thoughts and not intended for implementation (at this point).
Thanks,
Tantek
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:34:09
To: For discussion of new microformats.<[email protected]
>
Subject: Re: [uf-new] hAudio issue D2 "title"
Hello Scott
Scott Reynen wrote:
On [Sep 1], at [ Sep 1] 2:00 , Martin McEvoy wrote:
"fn" was changed to "title" because it was over used in haudio,
haudio title => fn
haudio contributor = fn
item title = fn
and what If the author of the audio came first?
This shouldn't be an issue. Every hAudio parser must understand
contributors and items, so there's no room for confusion here.
However, there *is* room for confusion when embedding hAudio in every
other microformat using fn, as those parsers have no awareness of
hAudio. And this is the problem mfo [1] seeks to solve.
But doesn't Not yet, mfo is just a concept an has not really been
contributed to since early 2007
so yes it would cause problems if you decided to embed a haudio
inside a
hcard because hcard has no understanding of haudio
I would say on a whole that existing microformats class names
(particularaly the older ones) cant really be used reliably in New
Microformats. because the older one's are only aware of their own
context.
Best wishes
Martin McEvoy
[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/mfo-examples
--
Scott Reynen
MakeDataMakeSense.com
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
