[uf-new] collection-design-pattern proposal

[Manu Sporny]

Scott Reynen wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2007, at 12:12 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> 
>> <div id="ktsampler" class="haudio">
>>    <div id="ktsampler.bh" class="haudio">
>>    </div>
>> </div>
> 
> What's wrong with this:
> 
> <div class="audio-album">
>     <div class="audio-track">
>     </div>
> </div>

Nothing really, if the problem of collections of tracks were isolated.

What about podcasts? Symphonies? Speeches? We can't use 'audio-album'
and 'audio-track' for those... well - we can, but the Microformat
namespace will become incredibly bloated as we try to re-create the
concept of a collection/relationship for each uF format.

> It seems to me a collection pattern is solving a problem we could avoid
> better by using more specific class names.  In this case, tracks and
> albums are two different things, so they should have two different class
> names.  Albums contain tracks by definition, so no need for additional
> semantics here, right?

You are correct for the specific case of albums and tracks. However,
we're going to keep seeing this problem crop up. Video is next and it
has the exact same 'collection' problem that audio does. The same goes
for images (photo albums, collages, etc.)

-- manu