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

[Martin McEvoy]

Hello Ben, Nice of you to join us.

On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 00:34 +0000, Ben Ward wrote:
> 'Title' came from vcard, and trying to bodge its semantics into  
> hAudio is just going to create a mess. 

haudio does not "Bodge" anything but thanks for the detrimental comment.

The Only place on the Microformats wiki I can find any "definition" of
what "title" in hcard actually means are:

Job title or functional position of the object.
http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-classes

and

See section 3.5.1 of RFC 2426.
http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-profile

How do "objects" have titles?

hAudio does NOT reuse "title" from hcard, because its actual meaning
seems deliberately vague and inaccurate to say the least.

we mean:
 
"title"

"what is to be used as a title for the object" 

and can be expanded into

 "Contents are a short textual description used to identify the object
among interested parties"

Its deliberately backwards compatible with the definition in hcard but
also can be re used in the FUTURE in:

Recipies
http://microformats.org/wiki/recipe-examples

Things
http://microformats.org/wiki/item-examples

Products
http://microformats.org/wiki/product-examples

Books
http://microformats.org/wiki/book-info-examples

Film
http://microformats.org/wiki/video-info-examples

Works of art
http://microformats.org/wiki/workofart-brainstorming

Media on a whole
http://microformats.org/wiki/media-info-examples

Jobs?
http://microformats.org/wiki/job-listing-examples

Citations
http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-examples

Blog Posts
http://microformats.org/wiki/blog-post-examples


I think the benefits far outweigh any "theoretical" chance that it might
break hcard, have you actually studied how many publishers actually use
"title" in their markup? have a look at your "real world" examples and
get back to me.

http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-examples-in-wild-reviewed

http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-examples-in-wild-with-problems

Thanks

Martin McEvoy

> Even if there's a tenuous way  
> to make the definition fit both, it's just a bad idea to generalise  
> two things which are very clearly not the same. ‘title’ a desirable,  
> valuable field name, but it's gone. In our µf world, it's got a  
> definition (which is not the most common English usage, it's true)  
> and if it doesn't map to a usage in another proposed format then  
> we'll have to use something else.