[uf-new] Namespace anti-pattern and hAudio TITLE (was: hAudio FN or Title)

[Manu Sporny]

David Janes wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008 10:38 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>> Microformats use "emulated namespaces"[3], for proof, we need only look
>> to hAtom[5]:
>>
>> * entry-title
>> * entry-content
>> * entry-summary
>>
>> In this example, "entry" is an "emulated namespace". This community has
>> been mis-using the word "namespace" for several years now, and it's
>> causing too many problems for those that are attempting to understand
>> why we allow "entry-title", but don't allow "namespaces".
> 
> No, it just looks like it uses an "emulates namespace" 

There's no such thing as "looking like you use an emulated namespace"...
just like there is no such thing as "looking like you use a context".
You either do or you don't. :)

If you can find an example of "looking like you're using an emulated
namespace" in any published linguistics, computer science, or
programming/language theory literature then please post that as I am
unaware of the concept.

Here are more examples of Microformats using "emulated namespace"s:

country-name      (hCard)
organization-name (hCard)
organization-unit (hCard)

> please see
> the hAtom discussions from two years ago if you're interested in the
> gory details. 

Got a link? I'd like to know how the thought process went.

> Essentially, the definition of those three items _is so
> specific to the problem domain_ that we invented names specifically
> for that.

Names were invented that have a common base stem, in the case of hAtom,
you used 'entry-'. That's my point. When you use a common base stem, it
is an indicator that you are using a form of namespacing - you are
creating context for what comes after the base stem.

I'm not stating that I think it was a bad decision. I'm stating that we
do stuff like that in Microformats while touting this "no namespaces!"
rhetoric, which is confusing to on-lookers.

We should be saying:

1. "No fully qualified namespaces!"
2. "Emulated namespaces are strongly discouraged!"

> e.g. "entry-title" isn't any old title, it's specifically the Atom
> concept of a title. You could imagine a blog post semantically marked
> up where a "fn" is around the entry-title with some more information
> ("David Janes says...")

I'm not asking that you rip it out - I'm asking that we be more
consistent in how we discuss namespaces. Here's what I think the
community is for:

1. No "fully qualified namespaces" in Microformats.
2. "Emulated namespaces" in very specific cases, such as hCard and
   hAtom.
3. Context is used to determine more specific semantic meaning for class
   names such as FN and TITLE.

#3 is what we're specifically talking about right now, but knowing #1
and #2 exist is also important to the discussion.

-- manu