[uf-new] hAudio ISSUE #1: image-summary is redundant
msporny at digitalbazaar.com
Wed Aug 8 08:10:48 PDT 2007
Martin McEvoy wrote:
> Right! Im afraid I am not an expert when it comes to parsing rules :)
> I'd just like to be happy that there wouldn't be any issues using PHOTO
> in hAudio, And I would like to be sure that PHOTO is an accurate term
> when describing an artistic representation or summary of a piece of
> Music. The more I think about it the more uncomfortable I am with using
> simply PHOTO it seems to fall short of what we are actually trying to
> describe, It seems like a very loose term?
Martin, you're correct - it is a looser term than image-summary.
The arguments for PHOTO are:
- It is a pre-existing class, we wouldn't have to invent a new class
(image-summary). Re-use is good.
- It is less accurate, but still accurate enough to convey the meaning
of what it is ("a photograph/image of the hAudio in question")
- It shouldn't conflict when implemented properly... and if it does, we
can always change it back.
Since we're also implementing the parser for hAudio, I think that using
PHOTO is do-able for the majority of the examples that we've analyzed to
date. I say we give it a shot... we have enough of an understanding of
the parsing requirements to say that "it should be possible to
disambiguate hcard/haudio PHOTOs in the parser".
So far, there are 3 votes for PHOTO (Brian, myself, and I'm counting you
Scott, as you didn't seem opposed to the idea of PHOTO), 1 opposed. It
would help if others would weight in on this so we can put the issue to
More information about the microformats-new