[uf-new] Microformats parsing, in general (was: hAudio final draft)

[Martin McEvoy]

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 10:08 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Scott Reynen wrote:
> > We can't both re-use property names and ignore the context of
> > those property names.  My dog's FN is not my FN, and if the only way for
> > me to make that clear is to use class="pet-name" instead of FN, that's
> > what will happen.
> 
> This is the heart of the problem.
> 
> The Microformats community has adopted two mutually exclusive philosophies:
> 
> 1. Scope-less approach to parsing.
> 2. Requirement to heavily re-use class names.
> 
> The problem with combining these two philosophies is that they work
> against each other. If there is no scope when you are parsing, your uF
> class names are going to start conflicting with one another. The result
> is that we end up being forced to not re-use class names because of the
> scoping philosophy.
> 
> Case in point: hAudio.
> 
> If we were going the re-use route, we should have re-used 'title',
> 'summary', or 'description'. Instead, we chose to create a new class
> name - 'audio-title'.
> 
> hAlbum is up next. What are we going to call the title of the album?
> 'audio-title'? We do know that hAudio is meant to be used for the
> tracks... and that's going to cause a problem. Let's not talk about
> theoretical, here's a real-world example of the problem:
> 
> http://www.bitmunk.com/view/media/6011107
> 
> In the page listed above, a track is listed before the album. The way
> the uF markup would have to work is that 'halbum' would be listed first,
> followed immediately by the haudio definition.
> 
> Therefore, if we use 'audio-title' for the title of the album, and
> 'audio-title' for the title of the track, we're going to have a problem.
> 
> halbum
>    track
>       haudio
>          audio-title    Holiday
>          collaborator
>             hcard
>                fn       Slick Fifty Seven
>          rel-sample     Sample
>          rel-purchase   PeerBuy
>          rel-purchase   WebBuy
>          published-date 2003-09-16
>          category       Punk
>          duration       4:39
>          price
>             money
>                currency $
>                amount   0.65
>    audio-title          The Ghost Of Bonnie Parker **OOPS!***
>       collaborator
>          hcard
>             fn          Slick Fifty Seven

   haudio
        audio-title    Holiday
        collaborator
           hcard
               fn       Slick Fifty Seven
         rel-sample     Sample
         rel-purchase   PeerBuy
         rel-purchase   WebBuy
         published-date 2003-09-16
         category       Punk
         duration       4:39
         price
            money
               currency $
               amount   0.65
  halbum  
      audio-title          The Ghost Of Bonnie Parker
      collaborator
         hcard
             fn          Slick Fifty Seven

would probably be the simple way? no nesting, it lets people publish
haudio and halbum separately.
Is your problem with the collection or album Item appearing last on a
page? If it is I would put it first on the page and sort the visual
issues out with css.

> Using MFO could fix this problem, although I believe that MFO is a hack.
> If we think that getting people to understand scoping is a problem -

It is when you cant use "title" when we mean "title" why Is it that only
hCard can use it when there is way more evidence to support it means
something else also? Way back machine has 85 billion web pages I would
guess that they all have <title></title> in the head. Title is not a
single definition is more of a disambiguation of many meanings.

> just wait until we need to explain why MFO exists. Try explaining MFO
> without getting into details about the parsers and how Microformats use
> a scope-less language design paradigm - these are not light-weight concepts.
> 
> MFO is a temporary band-aid for the real problem, which was the adoption
> of two mutually exclusive philosophies.
> 
> One obvious question at this point is: Why are uFs scope-less?
> OR: Why are uFs both scope-less and namespace-less?
> OR: Why are uFs scope-less but require heavy re-use of class names?
> 
> -- manu

:)

-Martin-
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
-------------- 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/20070620/07899c12/smime-0001.bin