[uf-new] First draft of hAudio proposal
brian.suda at gmail.com
Wed May 2 12:23:09 PDT 2007
On 5/2/07, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> How does that square with the principle of making things easier for
> publishers? "title" (or "movie-title" or "job-title", or whatever) is
> surely easier for publisher to remember, and more obvious when updating
> code, than the awful "FN"!
> How is "FN" supported, in preference to "title " or "*-title" by the
> evidence gathered?
--- we have already defined the semantics of TITLE, and those are
NOT the same semantics as presented here. FN or SUMMARY
FN: The name of the object.
SUMMARY: A short summary or subject for the object.
Are more inline with what is described.
I personally feel, the less properties to remember the cognitive load
any publisher needs. I might be wrong, but when you begin to mix
microformats it (in my opinion) is easier to remember FN for the name
of the object rather than "XYZ" for this "ABC" for that "MNO" for this
one .... less is more.
> Where is the evidence supporting your position? In how many of the sites
> cited as evidence, is the genre currently presented as a link to a tag
> name-space, or some other page of that ilk?
--- currently both hCard and hCalendar have CATEGORIES which do NOT
have to be tags. (it is recommended and the parsing changes based on
this) You could simply do:
If we introduce genre, i personally don't see how that is different
than category. Microformats are ment to be building blocks, not
boiling the ocean to solving every niche aspect of an ontology. I
think in a broad sense genres and categories are the same.
 - http://microformats.org/wiki/classes
More information about the microformats-new