[uf-new] hAudio Title Possible Alternative?
csarven at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 14:06:12 PST 2008
NAME appears to be a better solution then TITLE, FN, or something
along the lines of a prefixed "object class term" (e.g., AUDIO-TITLE).
* No conflicts with hCard (since this was one of the issues we had previously)
* No prefixes or the whole namespace dilemmas.
* Reusable for other media type formats (e.g., video title) and objects.
Based on the definitions of "name", NAME would be appropriate to
*distinguish* one object from another. Is this in any way create a
conflict (perhaps a misconception) if the hAudio object were to
contain multiple NAMEs? (re:
http://microformats.org/wiki/haudio-cheatsheet#Properties states that
TITLE may occur more than once).
Hope that made sense.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Martin McEvoy <info at weborganics.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello All
> This is to try and help the stalled hAudio Title Issue
> hAudio title is an Issue because its meaning is not the same as the
> hcard definition a "job title" unless the title attribute in haudio
> means "Job title" we cant use it because microformats describe single
> precise instances and do not have the ability to disambiguate... there
> are probably more reasons but the above is a good reason why a solution
> should be found, the development and adoption of the haudio microformat
> can not realistically continue until this issue is resolved.
> So I have been spending some time recently studying the audio info
> examples pages asking How Many of the examples use the word "Title" to
> mean an audio title? we want to call this thing "title" lets find some
> hard evidence?
> Out of 54 working examples
> 20 use the word or have the word Title in markup 37%
> 34 use just song, track or nothing in markup 63%
> As you can see there is no clear cut 80/20 result, so the action may be
> at this point to choose what would seem to be second best and choose
> "title" but 63% of the examples are doing something else, In most cases
> nothing meaningful just naming things.
> Alternative use "NAME" instead of "TITLE" as this seems to be what the
> majority of the examples are doing simply naming the objects.
> name http://www.answers.com/name&r=67
> "1, A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished
> from others."
> Name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name
> "A name is a label for a human or animal, thing, place, product (as in a
> brand name) and even an idea or concept, normally used to distinguish
> one from another. Names can identify a class or category of things, or a
> single thing, either uniquely, or within a given context."
> possible microformats definition
> name - A label for the object or thing, contents are a short textual
> description of the object or thing.
> hmm! ...that's just my deffinition :)
> I have dumped all my notes on why "name" may be more desirable than
> "title" in a single text file which may make interesting reading
> Its interesting to add that a "name" microformat may enhance the "n"
> definition on http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-classes
> where it says "The name of the unit" name can be hyperlinked to the
> "name" definition of "A short textual description of the object or
> I dont know if any of the above helps, It may even muddy the waters more
> comments feedback would be nice.
> Thanks all
> Martin McEvoy
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-new