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

[Manu Sporny]

Ben Ward wrote:
> OK, this is getting a bit wild. 

Woooo! Do we know how to party or what!? Look, look... Andy Mabbet's so
 toasted he's wearing a lampshade on his head! =P

> Can everyone please take a little stock.
> I shall try to lay out what I see are the ‘facts’ of this situation,
> which are being debated at length, but can't actually be altered.

A fact is a concept whose truth can be rigorously proven. I hope that
you don't mind that I ask you to prove these "facts", then.

> My elaboration on those ‘facts’:
> 
> 'Title' came from vcard, and trying to bodge its semantics into hAudio
> is just going to create a mess. 

The first part is a fact, the second part is certainly not a fact. It is
a statement of opinion.

I'm making this distinction not to be pedantic, but to point out that it
poisons the discourse of the conversation when one starts to claim
statements of opinion as fact.

Could you please explain how "bodging it's semantics is going to create
a mess"?

> ‘title’ a desirable, valuable field name, but it's gone. 

Argumentum ad antiquitatem[1]. That is a logical fallacy - it is not
"gone". You're arguing that we continue doing this for historical
reasons - "TITLE has always meant 'job title' and we should keep it that
way because that's the way it's always been."

We're talking about removing "job" from "job title" - how is that going
to hurt anything?

> Regarding FN, I happen to agree. It's very generic and works in place of
> something-called-title, but the name is unintuitive. I don't think that
> helps publishers.

Also, not a fact. It is a statement of opinion. I agree with that
statement of opinion, but what you have is a hypothesis, not a fact.

> On the basis of those two things, there is very little to debate.

That is a non sequitur[4], another logical fallacy. You cannot chain
together two statements of opinion and come to the conclusion that you
have without first making stronger arguments for the first two
hypotheses. For example, you'd have to demonstrate the reasoning behind
why "TITLE" is gone, for starters. Why are we disallowed from talking
about TITLE?

> TITLE is out of bounds because it doesn't mean what you want it to 
> mean in the context of microformats.

I know you probably didn't mean this to sound as harsh as it does, but
this looks like you're attempting to impose your opinion on the rest of
us by claiming that something is "out of bounds" when it is not. Bernays
would be proud[2][3]. Using dogma and stigmatizing those that step
outside of those bounds to support an argument certainly does glean
strong emotional responses.

> If ‘FN’ is agreed to be undesirable, then the
> only debate should be regarding what the alternative field name should be.

We are having that debate, and it looks like more people are coming out
of the woodwork to support TITLE in hAudio.

> For my 2¢, I think the ‘audio-title’ route is OK, and has no
> ‘namespacing’ consequences at all. The ‘audio-’ prefix is precision and
> clarification. It's not a grouping. 

Would you consider naming it 'haudio-title' namespacing or grouping?

> Perhaps the current debate would be more productive if it focused on
> solving that problem, rather than thrashing around the cement base of
> the issue.

Let me point out that the current debate has resulted in more people
supporting TITLE than not supporting it. The current count is 7 for
TITLE, 2 opposed (this includes counting you in the opposed category).

It should be noted that there are many decisions in this community that
have been passed with less feedback on an issue than that.

I am also starting to repeat myself, so I'm going to stop responding to
anything that is a repetition of something that has already been stated.

-- manu

[1]http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20antiquitatem
[2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kp24ZeHtv4
[3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsZ8UkkVAdM
[4]http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Non%20sequitur