[uf-new] hAudio: audio-title/album-title vs. recording/album

[Manu Sporny]

Martin McEvoy wrote:
> So we leave album-title and audio-title as it is?
> Or are we going to talk about it?

I was giving others at least a week to weigh in on the issue if they
wanted to... didn't want to front-load the discussion. :)

It is looking more and more like audio-title and album-title are going
to stick. If I'm the only one that really has an issue with it, that is
not a good reason to change it. I've made my argument and unless
somebody else steps forward to support changing it, it'll remain as is
(audio-title and album-title).

What is important is that we move hAudio to draft stage and I'm willing
to drop my proposal in order to do that... in the name of progress. :)

> +1 for changing album-title to just album because on its own it is
> both type and title

I don't think we can change just album... both of them would have to
change because the semantics behind both of them are the same. I think
the only viable options are:

audio-title and album-title
recording and album

> My concern is "recording" although the name suggests type and title, I
> dont think it is specific enough Its still a very loose term to
> describe what actually may be a recording or just the title itself.

In context, I believe that it makes sense. Remember, hAudio is the
top-level element, so they already know it's related to audio. I guess
we could do:

recording-title and album-title

which could be read as:

haudio recording-title and haudio album-title

and could be re-used in hvideo as:

hvideo recording-title

I believe we should chop off "-title", but I also admit that I'm being
pedantic... and it really isn't going to slow adoption.

> so another attempt at simplifying hAudio using my previous example
>
> <div class="haudio">
> 	<span class="album">Best Before 1984</span>
> 	By <span class="contributor">Crass</span>
> [...]
>     <div class="item">
>         <span class="track">Nagasaki Nightmare</span>
>         <abbr class="duration" title="P268T">4:46</abbr>
>     </div>
>
>     <div class="item">
>         <span class="track">Big A, Little A </span>
>         <abbr class="duration" title="P368T"> 6:13</abbr>
>     </div>
> [...]
> </div>

Item has already been defined as:

  item required. fn (url || photo ) | hCard (for person or business) |
                 hCalendar (for event)

Even if we were able to add "hAudio (for recording)" to the list of
allowables in hReview, we would be back to your issue of having to put
"item haudio" in the same class name, OR hAudio not being able to be
defined in tables. TRACK also more accurately describes what we're
talking about... and audio track.

The strongest argument for ITEM, assuming that it can contain hAudio, is
that we could re-use it in most of the other formats to denote a
sub-part of the higher-level Microformat. Who created ITEM in this
community, perhaps they have some insight?

-- manu