[uf-new] hAudio 1.0 Draft Release

Manu Sporny msporny at digitalbazaar.com
Wed Oct 15 07:24:49 PDT 2008

Martin McEvoy wrote:
> This email is to announce the hAudio[1] 1.0 Final Draft proposed Schema

It's good to see this moving forward as I haven't had any time to work
on hAudio over the past couple of months. :)

> Removed properties that are 70% or less of discovered elements
> category
> description
> sample
> payment
> price
> item

A couple of issues with the approach that is being taken:

1. These are very large, substantiative changes. There are currently
   no issues logged against any one of these attributes[1]. Shouldn't
   there be an issue logged against each one of these removals so that
   we can discuss the removal as per the uF Process?
2. Why remove all properties below 70% coverage? I thought we were
   attempting to solve the problem for roughly 80% of the sites out
   there? This proposal has us solving the problem for roughly 30%
   of the sites out there. Why are we suddenly ignoring 50% of our
   use cases?
3. I'm afraid that removing these properties will delay hAudio from
   reaching draft stage for much longer. Each removal requires a
   discussion, since we have had very long discussions to get each one
   of these elements into hAudio.

There are currently no issues on the hAudio issues page for all of these
removals. The only issue that we have to resolve right now to get hAudio
to draft stage is this one:


Now we're talking about adding roughly 8 new issues that are going to be
highly contentious to the debate. Why don't we just address hAudio Issue
D5 and proceed to Draft?

Issue D5 is your issue Martin - if you dropped it, we could proceed to
draft immediately. Or we could find enough examples to support it, adopt
it and proceed to Draft. Your proposal has us delaying hAudio for
another 6-8 months (based on how long it's taken us to get through the
five issues logged against hAudio in the first place).

> Recommended addition
> length(size)

While I agree that this would be a useful addition, we currently don't
have any examples to back up the addition of this attribute to hAudio.
We'd have to provide enough examples - even by your requirements
outlined above, we'd have to prove that 70% of the sites out there
publish this information (which they don't).

> Publishing Recommendations
> hAtom[3]  or XOXO[4] should be used for grouping audio

We've had very long discussions on using item for grouping hAudio and it
has been shown to work quite well. Why are we suddenly changing this?

> I hope to make the above recommendations Final  and make the above
> changes within the next week or so.

I certainly hope that we won't change hAudio so drastically over the
next week, especially since there are no logged issues against any of
these ideas.

-- manu

[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/haudio-issues

More information about the microformats-new mailing list