[uf-new] re: Microformats support for aggregate reviews

[Mr. Meitar Moscovitz]

On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Kavi Goel wrote:

> This approach makes sense to me. What do other folks think?

+1.

This feels simpler to me, and also somehow feels like it's actually  
solving for the case when I *only* want aggregates themselves.

-Meitar Moscovitz
Personal: http://maymay.net
Professional: http://MeitarMoscovitz.com

> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Othar Hansson <othar at othar.com>  
> wrote:
>>
>> Adding a new microformat for aggregate reviews seems like the wrong
>> direction to me, because we're adding one that will have strictly
>> fewer users than hReview itself.
>>
>> Will we do the same for aggregates of everything?  products,  
>> listings,
>> events, etc. could all reasonably have aggregates to describe "what's
>> on a page".
>>
>> Why don't we just define a trivial microformat "aggregate", which
>> contains one value "count", and can wrap any other microformat?  The
>> fields of the wrapped microformat get a new meaning: any given field
>> is meant to be an aggregate of all the other data associated with the
>> page.  E.g., a hypothetical price field should contain a price range.
>> A rating field should contain an aggregrate rating.  etc.
>>
>> --Othar