[uf-new] First draft of hAudio proposal
brian.suda at gmail.com
Wed May 2 10:50:38 PDT 2007
On 5/2/07, Manu Sporny <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> I'm not opposed to using a different separator. Although, I don't think
> the separator is what most are concerned about on the list. Most of the
> concern is coming from the following two camps:
> * Are sparse groups really a problem?! 
> * Names spaces are pure evil! Hang anybody that proposes anything
> that looks like a name space! :) 
--- i get the feeling that this thread is disolving into personal
ideas about what SHOULD be in an hAudio format and grouping? i can't
help but think, is this a problem that NEEDS solving? have you
attempted to mark-up audio formats with hListing or hReview? both of
those formats cover just about everything except the download links...
if that is the case we should think MICRO and look into creating
specific rel-values that any format could use. From what is seems from
your schema is that you have metadata about the downloadable file.
hReview has almost all the same metadata fields except price and
length. hListing has price.
Can this problem be solved without inventing a new format?
Can this be solved by extending an existing format?
Can this be solved by creating small building block formats that can
be reused in other formats?
Can this be solved only be creating a new hAudio format?
One of my other conserns is that hAudio is specific to audio, but the
fields being used could easily apply to media in general. Is the
research for this format not better suited for the more general
 - http://microformats.org/wiki/media-info
More information about the microformats-new