andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Thu Jul 19 11:03:16 PDT 2007
In message <73A8F10D-0403-48BC-A32B-EB4FD44EAC55 at dabble.com>, Mary
Hodder <mary at dabble.com> writes
>There are two things that I've noticed that may be in conflict:
>1. the example in the email yesterday gave a list of IMDB like types
>metadata around video from that perspective, that few people other than
>IMDB publish online. Most people to not put up a video they've made,
>either on their own blogs, or embedded from a hoster, and list all
>categories of metadata around the video.
>2. most people (and hosters) tend to publish video and give a limited
>set of data:
>other formats via url
>of the 100 million videos online now, that is maybe 95% if not more.
>Microformats are supposed to reflect what is actually in practice
>not what you want people to do that they don't do now.
I think you're comparing apples and pears. people *are* already
publishing movie credits, such as on IMDb; and movies are /not/ simply
There may well be a valid case for there being a microformat for each -
though I'd like to see the use-case for a movie microformat, as it's not
clear from this thread.
More information about the microformats-new