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

Manu Sporny msporny at digitalbazaar.com
Sat Jun 9 12:26:12 PDT 2007

Joe Andrieu wrote:
> I've always been puzzled by the anti-namespace and non-scoping arguments.

This discussion speaks volumes about how badly Microformats scale. This
whole process is short-sighted - it doesn't promote looking at the big
picture... about where we're headed if we keep making the short-term
decisions that we keep making.

We have five moderately sophisticated markup formats; hCalendar, hCard,
hAtom, hResume, and hReview. The fact that we're having such a hard time
deciding on a what to call "the distinguishing name of an audio
recording" is very telling - Microformat class naming is getting
exponentially more complicated.

In fact, the more Microformats there are - the more restrictive using
each with one another will become. There are two very contrary
Microformat philosophies at work here:

1. Reusing class names should be promoted as much as possible.
2. Due to no namespaces and no scoping - reusing terms restricts which
terms can be re-used.

The end result is we don't re-use class names. Rather than create the
possibility of a conflict when two or three Microformats are combined -
most uF authors will opt to create a new term.

As Scott pointed out, we probably don't want to use 'summary' because
placing an hAudio in an hReview is something that we want to do. In
fact, because we want hAudio to be integrated with hAtom and hReview -
we probably don't want to re-use any class names in either Microformat.

Following this logic, for anything that could be embedded in hAtom or
hReview, we could make good arguments for ruling out (at a bare minimum):

author, published, tags, entry-title, summary, type, item, rating,

Since hAtom and hReview also use hCard, it would also rule out:

fn, title, photo, logo, nickname, n

This is a problem because the semantics of 'fn', 'description' and
'summary' should be reused widely. However, because of the no-scoping
rule... we have to be incredibly careful with how we pick names.

For example, we may want to use 'description' for a 'work-of-art', but
because we wanted to embed the 'work-of-art' Microformat in hReview - we
can't use it.

What are the arguments against 'audio-title', again? We have
'entry-title', why can't we have an 'audio-title'?

-- manu

More information about the microformats-new mailing list