[uf-new] Media Microformat

Tantek Çelik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Mon Nov 10 18:02:36 PST 2008

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Martin McEvoy <martin at weborganics.co.uk> wrote:
> Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Martin McEvoy <martin at weborganics.co.uk>
>> wrote:
> I think  re-use hAtom too I have done for a long time,  but when I mentioned
> placing media-info in the domain of hAtom, It received quite a lot of push
> back from the community [1] I got "talked" out of the whole idea, I thought
> maybe I shouldn't go there again this time, but now the evidence is In so to
> speak, It was the right thought to begin with.
> [1]
> http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-April/000120.html

I agree with that push back in that *extending* hAtom is not the
answer, but rather using hAtom + an hMedia in a modular way, as
building blocks, and then trying that composite use of both to
capture/publish the semantics you have documented in your schema

>> see existing work:
>> http://microformats.org/wiki/comment (links to a lot of pre-existing work)
> I looked at comment but It doesn't seem to have got very far, and has not
> got much in the way of examples But seems to mostly concern itself with , I
> have already analysed 25 really good examples of Comments, so maybe I should
> add what I know to that and go from there?

Yes. The work on "comment" needs quite a bit of gardening and
improvement, and I think you've clearly done enough additional
analysis to take a shot at re-organizing / cleaning up the existing
work on comment-examples, comment-formats, and comment-brainstorming

In my opinion, there is not much special/unique to comments on media
info entries as opposed to comments on published entries in general,
thus the problems appear fairly equivalent to solve (with a much
broader benefit if the broader comments on entries problem is solved).

> my only concern is wasn't a
> comment microformat(hcomment) depreciated?

The "hcomment" effort (like many new microformat efforts) was
premature (named/written up before good/sufficient examples, formats,
brainstorming was done first) and thus documented as such.

In contrast, I think with the work you've done, it looks like you have
enough to move forward with a decent brainstorm/proposal.

>> Also, for "alternate", see http://microformats.org/wiki/alternates
>> (ditto).
> I wasn't aware of that discussion, thanks.
> Thanks for your valuable feedback

Absolutely.  Thanks for iterating on this with a good balance of
progress on the wiki and minimal update summaries in email.


More information about the microformats-new mailing list