[uf-new] Album Vs audio-title (was hAudio ITEM debate proposal #3)
martin at adwords-media.co.uk
Tue Oct 30 04:34:03 PST 2007
Scott Reynen wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>> also I dont believe fn and album together serve any real benefit as they
>> both seem to mean the equivalent of a title
> Not true.
> On Oct 21, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Scott Reynen wrote:
>> FN does *not* mean album name. It means *audio* name. Whether or
>> not that's the same as the album name determines whether or not we're
>> talking about an album.
That Is YOUR definition
> This is a pattern taken directly from hCard, another context in which
> subtypes are not explicitly stated but can still be determined by
> which elements are present. If you think hAudio should differ from
> hCard here, please explain why.
are you meaning that "fn album" is an optimization based on something
like the nickname optimization in hCard ?
The wiki is a little misleading at the moment but off the
The title of a collection of audio recordings that are represented as a
CD, album or LP. The text should be a short textual description used to
identify the work among interested parties. This can be the title of a
CD, album title, or the name of a collection of audio recordings.
* The element is identified by the class name |album-title|.
* hAudio /MUST/ have either |album-title| or |audio-title|.
How has the definition changed from the above?
All I am suggesting is that we should forget about any "fn album"
optimization for now and keep it simple.
Now that item / fn has been accepted to described hAudio tracks, there
is no real need to complicate hAudio any more than saying that
audio-title is the main hAudio title and fn is a track title and leave
> Scott Reynen
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-new