[uf-new] PROPOSAL: Replace hAudio FN with TITLE

[Manu Sporny]

Brian Suda wrote:
> 2008/2/12, Martin McEvoy <info at weborganics.co.uk>:
>> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 07:33 +0000, Brian Suda wrote:
>>> --- WOW, after 6 days we have made a community wide change effecting 3
>>> years of effort with only 4 people weighing in! I am sorry i haven't
>>> been timely enough to offer my thoughts.
> 
> --- i volunteer with the community and have not have much time in the
> last 6 days to properly give it the thought and discussions it
> deserves.

To say that this discussion has only been going on for 6 days is simply
not true. This discussion has been here since June 2007 (some would say
even earlier than that), here's the start of this discussion:

http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-June/000511.html

It is misleading to state that there hasn't been discussion on this topic.

> --- i would disagree. There are several reasons people do not answer.
> Maybe it was covered by someone else, maybe they are busy, maybe they
> personally are not interested.

Let's not assume anything about the people that do or do not answer as
anybody could mis-use intentions of those that stay silent to bolster
their position. Rather, let's look at the people that weighed in on the
issue.

> I would and do not jump up and down for every change, only ones which
> i feel are bad choices. People are pretty fatigued from having this
> debate over and over again without gaining any ground.

And I agree with Martin - let's deal with the debate rather than ignore
it, like we did in June 2007.

> --- i believe it was solved with FN. 

No, as Martin said, we settled for second best.

> My biggest concern is that fact
> that by usurping the term TITLE you are breaking all the previous
> hCards.

You stated this back in June, you stated it again this month, and I
asserted that it doesn't break any hCards. How does it break hCard? How
does it break Operator? How does this decision have any impact on any
hCard that is out in the field right now?

> I´m not saying we don´t NEED a term to represent the title of a work,
> just don´t re-define terms that already have meaning.

How about don't re-define terms to mean something different from the
English language, which is what hCard did. If you're defending that
decision, please tell us why TITLE should have a meaning that is
different than what is published in every English dictionary?

> The original logic in the question is flawed. The first portion is correct
> 
>> FN in hCard means "the formatted name of a person or orgainzation".
>> FN in hAudio currently means "the formatted name of an audio recording".
> 
> It is the next portion which is misleading and wrong:
> 
>> TITLE in hCard means "job title"
>> TITLE in hAudio means "audio recording title"

You missed the point, then. The point was this:

FN in hCard means "X of a person or organization"
FN in hAudio means "X of an audio recording"

See the parallel? X changes from hCard to hAudio, but the tail of the
statement stays the same. Where X is "job" in hCard, X is "audio
recording" in hAudio. If we want to be consistent, we MUST be able to do
the same for TITLE.

TITLE in hCard means "X title"
TITLE in hAudio means "X title"

Where X is "job" in hCard, and where X is "audio recording" in hAudio.
If we argue for anything else, we are being inconsistent. If we are
inconsistent, it will be much harder for people to understand
Microformats and take them seriously.

> It should be
> TITLE in hCard means the Job Title of the person or organization
> TITLE in hAudio means the Job Title of the audio recording

Why should it be that? Because you have decided that TITLE should not
follow the standard English definition and instead follow the definition
that is put forth in RFC 2426? Furthermore, anybody that uses
Microformats should be banned from using the English definition of TITLE?

> The correct logic is completely fine, but that is not what the
> proposal is trying to do. It is attempting to undo the definition of
> TITLE across all microformats, which has been discussed before and
> rejected in such formats as the citation.

Then it should be easy to outline the logic behind why it was rejected
for citation. I'm surprised nobody else on this list has referenced that
discussion if it was pertinent.

> i´m not against haudio or having some sort of title property for the
> format, what i do not like is attempting to break any format with any
> property that has already been defined. I believe this issue is
> already solved with FN, (IMHO) there is no need for this proposal to
> use TITLE.

There is quite a bit of FUD being thrown around here. You're asserting
that this will "break hCard", but have not provided any proof to back up
that claim. Please, back this statement up with something. All of us are
listening.

You're claiming that the issue is already solved when the primary
editors of hAudio are claiming that it most definitely has not been.

> So now you have my -1.

Thank you, noted. Four shows of support for TITLE in hAudio, one against.

Note that I do not mean any disrespect with this e-mail. If the tone
comes off as that, it is entirely unintended. I am pushing the issue
because you have not provided enough evidence to support your major
points of contention.

-- manu