[uf-new] Recipe

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <AEBE9092-86F5-4471-A932-2DB0376DC5B2 at ben-ward.co.uk>, Ben
Ward <lists at ben-ward.co.uk> writes

>We can't expect  people to use precise measurements for quantities, nor
>even to  explicitly mark up the order of their steps in anything more
>than  flowing paragraphs.

But we can allow them to.

>Talk on the brainstorming page about  being used for recipes for spells
>in computer games, or for making  bombs seems silly to me.

Perhaps, but then life isn't black-and-white.

I'm sure no-one would object to such a microformat being used for a
recipe, for, say, a fat-based cake to feed birds.

  <http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/features/2002/12/winter_birds.shtml>

What about making glue from flour:

  <http://www.recipegoldmine.com/childsticky/flour-water-paste.html>

  (note that that's one a recipe website)

or making dye from Woad:

  <http://www.nufasite.com/instructionsRecipes/woad.html>

Fact is, once such a microformat is available, people will use it for
whatever recipes they see fit, whatever our intentions.

[...]
>> Source (Book Title etc)
>
>Again, I'm not sure if there's a strong case for this. It just be
>cited in the Summary of the recipe, using a future citeation
>microformat if/when one exists.

I maintain that we should build the re-usable microformats (measurement,
currency, citation) first; then those that will use them.

>> Measurement System (U.S., Imperial etc)
>
>I don't see this being useful. Recipes do not use consistent
>measurements: There are combinations of metric weights and  approximate
>‘handfuls’ and ‘pinches’. Some recipes publish  both metric and
>imperial measurements alongside each other.

In that case, perhaps only one system should be microformatted, to avoid
confusing parsers?

>> Ingredients (each one a separate "item" rather than block text
>with count/amount/range/unit broken out too)
>
>‘Ingredient’ is pretty clear to me. The sub-parts are woolier  though,
>as follows:

Imagine you want a parser to compile a shopping list based on a
selection of recipes; or that you want to provide a web service with a
list of the potential ingredients you have to hand; and for it to return
suitable recipes?

In those cases, "four eggs" is more meaningful than "eggs"; and "500g
sugar" is more meaningful than "sugar".

>> Units need separate microformat: see measure
>
>No it doesn't! One day there might be a dedicated measurement format
>but right now there isn't.

See above.

>> Ingredient Preparation: such as diced, chopped, sliced, grated,
>minced, etc.
>> Ingredient importance (e.g. Main, Required, Optional) should be
>listed as an attribute of each entry.
>
>I think all of this is trying to get too specific.

Whether an ingredients is optional or required is important (again,
consider the "ingredients to hand" use case).

>> Meal Category (Starter, entree, dessert )
>> Cuisine Category (Italian etc)
>
>Tags.

Is there any evidence that people who publish recipes at the moment, and
use such categories, make those categories into links?

>> Instructions (text, but can contain:)
>> Steps (optional)
>> Should be an ordered list Andy Mabbett 14:46, 16 Nov 2006 (PST)
>> Another vote for an ordered list, perhaps in the XOXO format. ?
>
>I don't think this needs to be as explicit as this.

Note that my comment was "should" not "must".

>I think that from a publication point of view, the best we can hope
>for as a mandatory field here is ‘method’.

Yes; but with optional "method-step" (or whatever).

-- 
Andy Mabbett