[uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.
Charles Iliya Krempeaux
supercanadian at gmail.com
Thu Aug 23 15:21:07 PDT 2007
On 8/23/07, Martin McEvoy <martin at weborganics.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > It's like... you can identify someone by their SIN (... or Social
> > > > Security # in the USA)... but that does NOT make that their name. And
> > > > thus you would NOT put a "fn" on that.
> > >
> > > FN  represents the name of the object not a person so to speak
> > >
> > > so the use of fn in Andys example is fair use I would say.
> > In the example we had, as I understood it, this is a telephone number
> > of a person or a company.
> > So... the "object" is either a person or a company.
> so you dont think the telephone number is the object ?
Yes... a telephone is an object. But in this case, it is not the
"object" that the page is "talking" about AFAICT.
It's all about context. (And in this context, it's not the object
that matters. The organization that the telephone belongs to is the
object that matters.)
> > And given that, I would say that it isn't "fair" to apply the "fn" to
> > the telephone number, since it is NOT the name of a person or object.
> I understand you Charles it doesn't seem appropriate to use fn in this
> way but the telephone number here does not represent a person does it?
> it seems to be many people or an organisation.
In that case the "fn" should be applied to the name of the
organization. (Which isn't on the page.)
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. <http://ChangeLog.ca/>
Vlog Razor... Vlogging News
More information about the microformats-discuss