[uf-discuss] hReview feedback

[Ryan King]

On Jan 13, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Paul Bryson wrote:

> "Scott Reynen" wrote...
>> Microformats avoid addressing such hypothetical use cases.  See:
>>
>> http://microformats.org/wiki/process#Document_Current_Behavior
>
> Then shouldn't it be removed from the current spec?

Perhaps. Just remember, even though we work on a wiki, which allows  
instant editing, significant changes won't be made overnight. This  
change to hreview would, I believe, require a new version of hReview,  
which takes a bit of time and deliberation.

We don't have a formal process for this, but if someone will add the  
issue to http://microformats.org/wiki/hreview-issues, we can be sure  
that it gets covered as we iterate on hReview.

> Personally, I would like to see a way to present the information  
> drawing on
> some already defined and standardized method.  Using the date- 
> pattern as a
> basis of good design, allowing the information to be presented in  
> such a way
> that information can be truncated without loss of parsability.

Remember, the datetime design pattern is was created for a situation  
where we had to publish *both* human and machine data. It is  
therefore a compromise between two of our principles (the DRY  
principle and humans first). Such compromises are a last resort and  
should only be used when absolutely necessary.

In the case of range information for hReview ratings, the range is  
human readable data and there is no separate machine-only version  
which must be published. Therefore there's nothing to hide with an  
<abbr>.

-ryan
--
Ryan King
ryan at technorati.com