[uf-new] collection-design-pattern proposal

[Mary Hodder]

Manu,
I would agree.  I think it's fine to have a specific audio or photo  
or video format,
but the way I see people publishing online, these objects are made up  
of other
formats/objects.

Example, the video that uses snippets of a podcast and of a song.   
The video
that uses photos, and quotes from other videos.

The photo that has a quote in the middle (photonote), or the photo  
(thumbnail)
that comes out of a video.

It's fine to classify audio, photos and video, but the reality is,  
nesting and groupings
and quotes and variants (a video in english, and slighly different  
url of the same
video with spanish subtitles, another slightly different url of a  
shorter version of the video
with in and out points that show a specific scene or act)...

We need simple name spaces for audio, video and photos.. because they  
are intertwined
heavily.  I rarely see any one publish audio without at least a photo  
or image that represents
what's in the audio, or album cover art.

Thanks,
mary

On Apr 23, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new