h-review-feedback - Revision history

Tantek: TOC

2016-05-29T16:54:20Z

TOC

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 29 May 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{stub}}		{{stub}}
			__TOC__
	Feedback and discussion of [[h-review]]. Summarise any useful conclusions from discussions in [[irc]] here.		Feedback and discussion of [[h-review]]. Summarise any useful conclusions from discussions in [[irc]] here.

Tantek: feedback vs accepted, property re-use proposal accepted into spec

2016-05-29T16:53:11Z

feedback vs accepted, property re-use proposal accepted into spec

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Feedback and discussion of [[h-review]]. Summarise any useful conclusions from discussions in [[irc]] here.
 == Consistency with other microformats ==
 Some h-review properties are extremely similar to more generic, reusable properties in other microformats such as [[h-entry]], [[h-recipe]]:
@@ Line 14: / Line 23: @@
 ** +1 Agreed, especially since there are (still) so few microformats2 h-reviews in the wild. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 </div>

Tantek: agreed with proposal

2016-05-29T16:36:49Z

agreed with proposal

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:36, 29 May 2016
Line 9:		Line 9:
	* e-description => e-content		* e-description => e-content

	What is the value of duplicating these properties? Could they be merged, increasing consistency between microformats and reducing total amount of surface area which must be remembered? As there are almost no microformats2 h-reviews in the wild, right now would be a good time to make these changes --[[User:Barnabywalters\|bw]] 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)		<div class="discussion">
			* What is the value of duplicating these properties? Could they be merged, increasing consistency between microformats and reducing total amount of surface area which must be remembered? As there are almost no microformats2 h-reviews in the wild, right now would be a good time to make these changes --[[User:Barnabywalters\|bw]] 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
	** +1 Would make the publishing side a little easier, and the consuming side a lot easier. Right now, Woodwind does not display h-reviews, but if they used mostly common properties, they would be easier to add. [[User:Kylewm\|Kylewm]] 14:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)		** +1 Would make the publishing side a little easier, and the consuming side a lot easier. Right now, Woodwind does not display h-reviews, but if they used mostly common properties, they would be easier to add. [[User:Kylewm\|Kylewm]] 14:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
			** +1 Agreed, especially since there are (still) so few microformats2 h-reviews in the wild. [[User:Tantek\|Tantek]] 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
			</div>

Kylewm: /* Consistency with other microformats */ +1

2016-05-16T14:34:43Z

Consistency with other microformats: +1

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:34, 16 May 2016
Line 10:		Line 10:

	What is the value of duplicating these properties? Could they be merged, increasing consistency between microformats and reducing total amount of surface area which must be remembered? As there are almost no microformats2 h-reviews in the wild, right now would be a good time to make these changes --[[User:Barnabywalters\|bw]] 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)		What is the value of duplicating these properties? Could they be merged, increasing consistency between microformats and reducing total amount of surface area which must be remembered? As there are almost no microformats2 h-reviews in the wild, right now would be a good time to make these changes --[[User:Barnabywalters\|bw]] 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

			** +1 Would make the publishing side a little easier, and the consuming side a lot easier. Right now, Woodwind does not display h-reviews, but if they used mostly common properties, they would be easier to add. [[User:Kylewm\|Kylewm]] 14:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Barnabywalters: /* Consistency with other microformats */ added e-description => e-content proposal, signed

2014-03-13T15:22:26Z

Consistency with other microformats: added e-description => e-content proposal, signed

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 13 March 2014
Line 7:		Line 7:
	* p-reviewer => p-author		* p-reviewer => p-author
	* dt-reviewed => dt-published		* dt-reviewed => dt-published
			* e-description => e-content

	What is the value of duplicating these properties? Could they be merged, increasing consistency between microformats and reducing total amount of surface area which must be remembered? As there are almost no microformats2 h-reviews in the wild, right now would be a good time to make these changes.		What is the value of duplicating these properties? Could they be merged, increasing consistency between microformats and reducing total amount of surface area which must be remembered? As there are almost no microformats2 h-reviews in the wild, right now would be a good time to make these changes --[[User:Barnabywalters\|bw]] 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnabywalters: added summary, consistency issue

2013-06-15T17:16:44Z

added summary, consistency issue

New page

Feedback and discussion of [[h-review]]. Summarise any useful conclusions from discussions in [[irc]] here.

== Consistency with other microformats ==

Some h-review properties are extremely similar to more generic, reusable properties in other microformats such as [[h-entry]], [[h-recipe]]:

* p-reviewer => p-author
* dt-reviewed => dt-published

What is the value of duplicating these properties? Could they be merged, increasing consistency between microformats and reducing total amount of surface area which must be remembered? As there are almost no microformats2 h-reviews in the wild, right now would be a good time to make these changes.