On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tantek Çelik wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> ... > I think re-use hAtom too I have done for a long time, but when I mentioned > placing media-info in the domain of hAtom, It received quite a lot of push > back from the community [1] I got "talked" out of the whole idea, I thought > maybe I shouldn't go there again this time, but now the evidence is In so to > speak, It was the right thought to begin with. > > [1] > http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-April/000120.html
I agree with that push back in that *extending* hAtom is not the answer, but rather using hAtom + an hMedia in a modular way, as building blocks, and then trying that composite use of both to capture/publish the semantics you have documented in your schema analysis. >> see existing work: >> http://microformats.org/wiki/comment (links to a lot of pre-existing work) >> > > I looked at comment but It doesn't seem to have got very far, and has not > got much in the way of examples But seems to mostly concern itself with , I > have already analysed 25 really good examples of Comments, so maybe I should > add what I know to that and go from there? Yes. The work on "comment" needs quite a bit of gardening and improvement, and I think you've clearly done enough additional analysis to take a shot at re-organizing / cleaning up the existing work on comment-examples, comment-formats, and comment-brainstorming accordingly. In my opinion, there is not much special/unique to comments on media info entries as opposed to comments on published entries in general, thus the problems appear fairly equivalent to solve (with a much broader benefit if the broader comments on entries problem is solved). > my only concern is wasn't a > comment microformat(hcomment) depreciated? The "hcomment" effort (like many new microformat efforts) was premature (named/written up before good/sufficient examples, formats, brainstorming was done first) and thus documented as such. In contrast, I think with the work you've done, it looks like you have enough to move forward with a decent brainstorm/proposal. >> Also, for "alternate", see http://microformats.org/wiki/alternates >> (ditto). >> > > I wasn't aware of that discussion, thanks. > > Thanks for your valuable feedback Absolutely. Thanks for iterating on this with a good balance of progress on the wiki and minimal update summaries in email. Tantek -- http://tantek.com/ _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
