[uf-new] hAudio final draft

Martin McEvoy martin at weborganics.co.uk
Fri Jun 15 18:57:40 PDT 2007

Hello Joe

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 15:46 -0700, Joe Andrieu wrote:
> > Of Martin McEvoy wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:10 +0100, Martin McEvoy wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 16:02 -0500, David Janes wrote:
> > > > On 6/15/07, Manu Sporny <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> > > > > * Adopted 'audio-title' to specify the title of the recording
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry to bring up this sore point, but why "audio-title" 
> > over "fn"? 
> > > > I did see your feedback a couple of days ago about the 
> > concepts of 
> > > > "audio-title" being different from "track-title", etc (I can't 
> > > > remember the exact terms, but you get the point). 
> > However, it seems 
> > > > to me that "fn" could be used to represent each of these 
> > _concepts_, 
> > > > as the "fn" will be appropriately nested within identifying 
> > > > containers.
> > > 
> > > we never did get to the bottom of this it was just left hanging!
> As I understand it that problem is that "fn" for the hAudio would be unable to be differentiated from the "fn" for the hCard of a
> contributor of the hAudio.
> uF has no scoping.  See this email:
> http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-June/000555.html
> As I understand it, if we had:
> <div class="haudio">
>    <span class="contributor">
>       <span class="vcard">
>          <span class="fn org">Phish</span>
>       </span>
>    </span>
>    <span class="fn">Sneaking Sally Thru The Alley</span>
>    <br/>
> </div>
> The two "fn" fields would clobber each other.

yes I Know this...
> This is a pretty harsh limit on uF, one that I personally think should/could go away by allowing uF containing other uF to know that
> the contained uF should be excluded from parsing by the parent.
> However, in the above example, I believe we have a problem if the order is reversed and the hCard includes the hAudio, because hCard
> is already defined and has no exclusionary principles.
> This issue is worth tackling, but solving it before we finish hAudio would bring hAudio to a screeching halt for an indeterminate
> period of time.
> > > > (2)
> > > > A little voice in my head says this is more general than audio...
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > my little voice tells me baaad things but I guess its not a 
> > subject of 
> > > this list...
> > 
> > ...ok then it is
> > 
> > do you think that the title of an audio file is always the 
> > same as the actual file itself?
> The title is not the name of the file. Audio-info does nothing with regard to the mediafile/audiofile that may or may not be
> associated with the audio except for, potentially, pointing to the file as "rel-enclosure".

hmm there is me getting it all wrong again I thought hAudio was about
the metadata associated with the file?

> > or that audio-title refers to both a download-able file or an 
> > album title, 
> ???
> This I don't understand. "audio-title" refers to the name/title or the audio piece referred to by the uF.  If that piece is an
> /entire/ album, then that's what it is.  Albums that are groupings of multiple individual audio pieces are out of scope (for the
> moment). The title of the piece has nothing to do with the filename that might be used.

my argument is that audio-title refers to two or more separate
instances, It refers to a collection/album title witch may be a number
of tracks or none, and a single track title:

haudio audio-title album Title
haudio audio-title track title 1
haudio audio-title track title 2
haudio audio-title track title 3

> > Im having difficulty again understanding how this is 
> > different than either "fn" or "summary" or "whatever"

you may as well use any of the above including "whatever"

> Martin, I don't know how to reply except to ask you to re-read the thread. 

thank you for your advice but #@$£!!.... oops there goes the little
voice in my head again.

ahem I Will 

> "fn" is arguably inaccurate and clobbers "fn" from hCard.
> "summary" is inaccurate for many audio pieces and clobbers "summary" from hReview.
> "whatever" is semantically meaningless.

It would be cool though to have a mF called "whatever" it could be used
in a hArgument or hDiss ..Joke..

my music collection is not something I would describe as "hey guys pop
over to my gaff and listen to a few audio's" or "hey have you got that
new audio by nine inch nails" no its as bad as my summary idea. My music
collection has album's, compilations, Mixes, EP's, Singles, Track's
Song's, Box Sets, multible CD's, CD's mp3's wav's

I even looked at the audio-info/media-info-examples to see how many used
the word "audio" to refer to a track or album title, apart from audio
find,...well I got bored trying to find one... people generally use the
words title album track song

"album-title" is good because people use the word
"track-title" is also good because of the above
"song-title" and you get my drift...

our "audio-title" refers to 1 album, 2 track, 3 song none of which are
the same thing are they?

> "audio-title" is specific, accurate, and has no clobber issues with any existing uF.

I have doubts that it is accurate or not, is... 

audio-album title="[...]"


audio-track title="[...]"


Have fun.


> -j
> --
> Joe Andrieu
> SwitchBook Software
> http://www.switchbook.com
> joe at switchbook.com
> +1 (805) 705-8651 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2171 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/attachments/20070616/e5b581d9/smime.bin

More information about the microformats-new mailing list