[uf-discuss] hCite progress
jeremyboggs at gmail.com
Tue Nov 14 17:54:58 PST 2006
On Nov 14, 2006, at 7:59 PM, Scott Reynen wrote:
>> Does the "it's" to which you're referring, Scott, mean hCite for a
>> reviewed book in general, or marking up page numbers specifically?
> Neither. I was referring only to page count (which is different
> than page numbers).
Good catch; I meant "page count," but didn't actually type that,
there and a few other places in my email. My bad.
> Yes. Nearly every type of microformat published in the wild
> contains content that isn't part of the microformat's purpose.
> Parsers just ignore this unrelated content. But it can still be
> intermingled in the HTML.
>> My understanding of why page counts exist in book review
>> bibliographic information is that it is a legacy from older
>> problems with knowing which book is the "right" book, or the book
>> your referring to; I might refer to a version that has, say, 438
>> pages, but there might be another print run that had, for various
>> reasons, 420 pages. This is so much a problem anymore, so maybe it
>> isn't a problem for hCite.
> If that were a common problem I think it would be a compelling
> reason to include page counts. But if it's just an edge case,
> hCite can still be useful to the 80% (or more) cases where page
> count is irrelevant, and people can still read the page count where
> it's relevant even if machines can't.
This makes sense. I don't think it is anymore, especially with the
prominence of editions and versions of printed works. From my
understanding, keeping page counts has been simply a legacy of that
problem. It might also serve a purpose for book stores trying to
determine how much shelf space they need for certain books, but this
is merely speculation on my part. In any case, neither is really a
good argument for including page counts in hCite.
>> Is there a reason why hCite could not be used in a book review
>> marked up in hReview?
> I don't see any. You have to cite a book before you can review it,
Quite true; you do have to include the bibliographic information
before you can review it, at least in a standard academic review. I
guess, then, that we should at some point add hCitation to the review
I do think that, if we decide that this is out of the scope of hCite,
it would be good to include on the wiki somewhere some explanation of
why certain bibliographic/citation elements are left out of hCite.
Especially for folks who regularly write out references and citations
and are just picking up on microformats; folks like me:)
More information about the microformats-discuss