[uf-discuss] hReview feedback
mnot at mnot.net
Wed Jan 11 10:12:11 PST 2006
(I had to restrain myself from Subject: hReview Review)
In general, I like hReview a lot, and it fits the use case I'm
working on nicely.
However, it's currently too restrictive in a couple of places; in
particular, it requires the reviewer and the date reviewed to be
explicitly included in the content. While I understand that this
information is useful -- or even required -- for some uses of
hReview, it may not be for others.
For example, a review's author might be inferred from the Web site
it's hosted on. The date of the review could be inferred from the
HTTP Last-Modified header, it could be unknown, or it could be
irrelevant (e.g., a review of a recipe).
In general, I don't think that formats that are to be used on the
open Web should have lots of mandatory fields; it raises the bar for
authoring them (as well as repurposing existing data to them), and
ends up restricting how people use them, because of the unforeseen
consequences of doing so. I think this is the biggest mistake we made
in Atom; rather than making it an open format, we required a bunch of
elements that really weren't always required.
Anyway, keep up the good work, and please make these fields optional.
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
More information about the microformats-discuss