[uf-new] item property (was: hAudio: audio-title/album-title vs. recording/album)

[Manu Sporny]

Michael Smethurst wrote:
> In these cases track would be plain wrong
> 
> Also nested items/haudios would allow you to mark up classical works/opera
> (as opposed to perfomances/recordings). In the case of an opera:
> 
> Haudio - opera
>     haudio - act
>         haudio - scene
>             haudio - aria
> 
> Or is this too much of a corner case?

Marking up collections of live performances is outside of the scope of
the current discussion. The current scope of the discussion (and of
hAudio) is how to handle albums and tracks, specifically.

That being said, with all of the known nuances in the examples and
haudio proposals, you could do the above like so with the current
ITEM+HAUDIO proposal (which uses mfo - any "item haudio" is opaque to
the containing hAudio):

div class="haudio" - opera
   div class="item haudio" - act
      div class="item haudio" - scene
         div class="item haudio" - aria

TRACK+HAUDIO wouldn't make semantic sense above. The above example is,
however, a bit contrived as I've never seen an opera described online
and none of the examples have Opera in there. That is not to say that it
doesn't exist... but it definitely isn't as mainstream as music blogs or
music service websites.

It is outside of the scope of this discussion, but the current
ITEM+HAUDIO, TRACK and TRACK+HAUDIO proposals work for Opera markup. The
semantics do make more sense with ITEM+HAUDIO, FWIW.

-- manu