[uf-new] First draft of hAudio proposal
scott at makedatamakesense.com
Wed May 2 07:38:08 PDT 2007
On May 2, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> * 100% of examples contained some form of grouping
> * 67%: ordered
> * 65%: unordered
> * 62%: non-sparse
> * 54%: sparse
> As the analysis shows - we need a solution that can do both sparse and
> non-sparse grouping. All of the non-name-space-based solutions
> thus far do not support sparse grouping.
Can you point out some actual examples of what you're calling
"sparse"? I can't find anything in the examples that couldn't fit
into hatom, which has the same structure I've proposed. If the album
and track info are far apart in the page, can't we just put something
like class="album" in the <body> element to encapsulate the whole
page? That doesn't allow one to markup unrelated tracks within the
same album's element, but we also can't mark up unrelated items
within the same feed element with hatom. If we ever work out general
opacity rules, that will no longer be an issue, and meanwhile it
seems very much like an edge case.
On May 2, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Could we give it 2 weeks for people to weigh in and if we don't
> reach a
> consensus at that point, drop it from the draft and go forward?
> Genre is
> used very frequently - we should make a concerted effort to solve the
> problem before giving up.
Sure, but not including something immediately is not really "giving
up." Microformats evolve over time, so we can always add more
later. At some point we'll need to decide if waiting on consensus
around a given property (e.g. genre) is worth delaying agreement on
the standard in general. But I'm not in any hurry.
More information about the microformats-new