[uf-new] hAudio ITEM debate proposal #3

[Manu Sporny]

This is a follow-up to a previous attempt at resolving the hAudio
track/item debate:

http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-October/001150.html

Brian Suda and I spent quite a bit of time talking about alternatives
and it seems that his disagreement with the previous approach was
largely due to implementation requirements. The end result of our
discussion had more to do with implementation than a change in markup.

While we didn't agree on everything, there was a common thread in the
ideas that allow us to move forward. Namely, if we focus on the
following, we should reach agreement:

 * Not prematurely optimizing hAudio.
 * Use ITEM and not ITEM+HAUDIO.

PROPOSAL:

HAUDIO parts are denoted by ITEM:
   <span class="item"><span class="fn">Track Name</span></span>

EXAMPLES:

Album with two tracks, simple example:
<span class="haudio">
   <span class="fn album">Best Before 1984</span>
   <span class="contributor">Crass</span>
   <div class="item">
      <span class="fn">Hokkaido Dream</span>
   </div>
   <div class="item">
      <span class="fn">Tokyo Groove</span>
   </div>
</span>

Album with two tracks, more detailed:
<span class="haudio">
   <span class="fn album">Best Before 1984</span>
   <span class="contributor">Crass</span>
   <span class="item">
      <span class="fn">Hokkaido Dream</span>
      <abbr class="duration" title="PT3M24S">3:24</abbr>
   </span>
   <span class="item">
      <span class="fn">Tokyo Groove</span>
      <abbr class="duration" title="PT4M46S">4:46</abbr>
   </span>
</span>

Scott, I think you and I had the most adverse reactions to this
approach. I've learned to live with it as this approach did not cause
problems when marking up over 20 of the audio-info examples.

Thoughts, suggestions, comments? This is the last blocking issue with
hAudio before we can move it to Draft status.

-- manu