[uf-discuss] Chat microformat/podcast transcript
connect at stevenR2.com
Fri Apr 14 01:42:13 PDT 2006
Anyone ever remember HumanML - taken on by Oasis at some point.
It's not really "micro", but something may be borrowed from it.
I agree there are different aspects of communication required in any
From: microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org
[mailto:microformats-discuss-bounces at microformats.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: 14 April 2006 08:43
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Chat microformat/podcast transcript
On 4/12/06, Jude Robinson <jude at dotcode.com> wrote:
> Would it be appropriate to add this to
> http://microformats.org/wiki/chat-examples under a tentative "*might be
> relevant to chat*" "podcast transcripts" heading?
Sure. It's a kind of chat... though I wonder if there isn't some
distinction to be made between aural and text-based chats?
> >  http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/lists.html#h-10.3,
> > yeah, i know, it actually says, right there in the
> > 4.01 spec, that DL's might be used to mark up
> > dialog, but dialog isn't a definition, is it? i
> > don't like it. but that's just me.
> I agree entirely. Think it very odd and reckon <cite> and
> <q>/<blockquote> more appropriate. Don't understand the dl suggestion at
I disagree, but then I've always been a fan of DLs. The problem that I
see with only using <q> <cite> and <bq> is that they're ways of
loosely pairing a speaker and what they've said. I don't know of any
way to closely couple the two.
At least with DT and DD there's a clear correlation for the speaker
with her/his words:
something that speaker 1 said
something that speaker 2 said
> <tangent>Would it be correct to use hCard for the people in a
> transcript, or am I jumping the gun/plain wrong?</tangent>
That's the intended "building block" design of microformats... so yes,
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss