[uf-new] First draft of hAudio proposal
davidjanes at blogmatrix.com
Wed May 2 14:38:05 PDT 2007
On 5/2/07, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <21e523c20705021222v20d7fb3pf4aef9c53a2b1046 at mail.gmail.com>,
> David Janes <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com> writes
> >On 5/2/07, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <21e523c20705020405o1f08c1d3s29a8c8bef104a830 at mail.gmail.com>, David
> >> Janes <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com> writes
> >> >If you mean what most people do by "title", then FN is the correct
> >> >thing to use.
> >> 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?
> >Did you even read what I wrote Andy?
> Yes; you asserted that, in a certain circumstance, ' "FN" is the correct
> thing to use'. I then asked you justify that; in relation to making
> things easy for publishers, and in relation to the evidence gathered so
> You appear to have done neither.
I said what I said, exactly naming the circumstance. I also apparently
made the incorrect assumption that you've read the microformat naming
More information about the microformats-new