[uf-new] hAudio ITEM debate proposal #3
davidjanes at blogmatrix.com
Mon Oct 29 02:36:58 PST 2007
On 10/28/07, Scott Reynen <scott at makedatamakesense.com> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> > 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?
> As long as an ITEM within an HAUDIO is itself defined as an audio
> recording, I see no problem with leaving out the HAUDIO class name here.
There may be an issue in the _docs_ for hListing  and hReview ,
i.e. that item can now refer to part of a thing rather than the thing
itself, though nothing functional should need to change. There's
definitely a change need here , though once again no big deal. The
way they same to spec item seems to be loose enough anyway, and
perhaps after this proposal goes through we can make hItem a real spec
and reference that.
More information about the microformats-new