[uf-new] First draft of hAudio proposal

Scott Reynen scott at makedatamakesense.com
Wed May 2 07:38:08 PDT 2007

On May 2, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> http://microformats.org/wiki/grouping-examples
>     * 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  
> proposed
> 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.

Scott Reynen

More information about the microformats-new mailing list