[uf-new] title vs. summary (was: Third attempt at hAudio)

Joe Andrieu joe at andrieu.net
Fri Jun 8 23:09:46 PDT 2007

Martin McEvoy wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 18:25 -0600, Scott Reynen wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Martin McEvoy wrote:
> > 
> > > the only other microformat that does use Title is of course hAtom
> > > which
> > > is also built around rfc standards 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4287  
> > > Atom
> > 
> > hAtom actually uses "entry-title."  While that has a similar meaning
> > to "title" in English, those two terms have completely distinct  
> > meanings in microformat definitions, because microformats 
> definitions  
> > are by necessity more specific than English definitions.
> which is why entry-title would not be suitable...

>From Scott's comments, I think I understand.

Either we need a generic "exclusion" container so that parent uFs can know to ignore potential duplicates in a child uF--which I
think is the heart of the "mfo" suggestion--or we need unique field names.

In short, that is because a uF can have sequentially embedded content that is not logically embedded. "mfo" would logically embed it
in a no-parse zone for current parents.  That sounds reasonable, but I think it is a "young" conversation that will take some time
to evaluate and work through its paces.

So, if hAtom uses "entry-title", why is "audio-title" bad?


Joe Andrieu
SwitchBook Software
joe at switchbook.com
+1 (805) 705-8651 

More information about the microformats-new mailing list