hrecipe-issues: Difference between revisions

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
== issues ==
HOW THING THROUGH
<span id="Issues">Please add new issues</span> to the '''bottom''' of this section by copy and pasting the [[hrecipe-issues#template|Template]]. Please follow-up to resolved/rejected issues with new information rather than resubmitting such issues. Duplicate issue additions will be reverted.
HOW MAKE THING THROUGH
 
HOW THING BE THROUGH
 
HOW MAKE THING BE THROUGH
<div class="vevent">
HOW ANYTHING THROUGH
* {{OpenIssue}} <span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2009-01-22</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]]</span></span>
HOW MAKE ANYTHING THROUGH
<div class="description">
HOW ANYTHING BE THROUGH
* '''"num" and "unit"'''.  I only recently discovered the properties "type" and "value" from 'hCard'. I'll replace "num" and "unit" from the unfinished 'measure' with them.
HOW MAKE ANYTHING BE THROUGH
** The decision to replace "num", "unit", and "item" with "type" and "value" needs further explanation. Was it due to the fact that measure is unfinished? If so I think leaving "ingredient" and "nutrition" as text strings until measure is finished would be a better idea. The transition from "type"/"value" to measure will be difficult at a later point and I believe measure is more appropriate than re-using hCard. [[User:Yde|Yde]] 11:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
HOW EVERYTHING THROUGH
*** The proposal to replace "num", "unit", and "item" with "type" and "value" has several reasons: first, i only recently thoroughly and systematically investgated other formats and that's when i found "type" and "value". They have a semantic advantage in that they may be more suitable for cases like value:"2"/type:"eggs" or value:"1/2"/type:"spoonfull" which are rather informal ways of putting measures, at least do not lend themselves easily to formal specification. Another reason is that these terms come from a comparably very stable vocabulary, while measure has not even draft status. It would be perfectly okay for measure to change attribute names, semantics or even the whole structure of the vocabulary. Although it doesn't look like that measure will (have to) do that I'd prefer to stay on the safe side, especially since we might even gain semantic advantage. [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
HOW MAKE EVERYTHING THROUGH
**** I'm still not sure this is the right decision. 1) I don't think the semantic meaning of hCard's "type"/"value" is exactly equivalent to measure's "num"/"unit"/"item". From the [[hcard-profile]]: "Value: This class name is used to distinguish the actual *value* of a property from any other cruft that may be in the element representing the property." So what is the actual value of an ingredient? Is it the name of the ingredient or is the quantity? 2) This is ''exactly'' what [[measure]] is for. The advantage of being able to convert measures would IMO be one of the gratest advantages of hRecipe. I don't see why value:"2"/type:"eggs" is better than num:"2"/item:"eggs"? I agree that cases like value:"1/2"/type:"spoonfull" is problematic, but that's a [[measure]] issue. 3) Many [[recipe-formats]] use quantity/unit/item.
HOW EVERYTHING BE THROUGH
***** Measurements are rather informal in recipes and therefor the type/value pair seems quite appropriate to me. Automatic translation is out of scope. Anyway for a good enough machine translation of a recipe the markup of the ingredients won't be the main hurdle. Standardizing the informal quantities would be a requirement for such an effort. I made some suggestions for a vocabulary of most used "units" like cups, teespoonfulls etc a few months ago but no one reacted. So I dropped it.
HOW MAKE EVERYTHING BE THROUGH
***** But we're moving in circles. You are making valid points too. One reason I decided this way is that it's more inline with other decisions like reusing "fn". Since not all the shortcomings of microformats can be solved within hRecipe and since there has been no interest in discussing them here I decided to go the way of  least resistance and stick with the customs of compactness, reuse and rather lax interpretation of semantic constraints. IMO hRecipe is now consistent with the genereal microformats approach and neither necessitates nor hinders a general redesign of microformats (which I think would be a good thing). --[[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 11:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
HOW UNIVERSE THROUGH
**** Proposed resolution: keep "ingredient" as a text string like "yield" - which would also benefit from a measure format - until such a format is ready. [[User:Yde|Yde]] 10:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
HOW MAKE UNIVERSE THROUGH
***** I opened this issue again and marked the subproperty  'value' and 'type' of ingredient as ''experimental''. This should leave enough room to discuss this issue further. --[[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 11:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
HOW UNIVERSE BE THROUGH
</div>
HOW MAKE UNIVERSE BE THROUGH
</div>
HOW THING OUT
 
HOW MAKE THING OUT
 
HOW THING BE OUT
<div class="vevent">
HOW MAKE THING BE OUT
* {{OpenIssue}} <span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2008-12-27</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:Tantek|Tantek Çelik]]</span></span>
HOW ANYTHING OUT
<div class="description discussion issues">
HOW MAKE ANYTHING OUT
# '''Too many properties.''' From reviewing the [[recipe-examples]], it does not appear that the schema implied by the examples justify the number of properties in hRecipe, especially for a first draft.  microformats should start as small as possible (even smaller), and in this regard I believe several improvements could be made. There is one obvious example of recipe-title vs recipe-summary, but it looks like there may be more.  Would appreciate feedback from folks who add hRecipe to the recipes on the web regarding which properties they ended up not using.
HOW ANYTHING BE OUT
#* It is  not necessarily helpful to constrain a vocabulary by all means. hCard and hCalender are examples for too large vocabularies (which mostly stems from the approach taken of converting an existing vocab 1:1) which are not as easily usable as one would wish. But to be useful a vocabluary should encompass 80:20 of the usecases, otherwise it may well not be worth the burden of implementation. We better try to hit that sweet spot right from the start - since otherwise, how should hRecipe get traction in the wild. All of the proposed properties are used on big recipe sites (many 'user generated content' sites among them) on the web. Please provide more arguments which properties you specifically think are superfluous. The only concrete example you give is to replace title by summary (which I think is a bad idea).  [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]]
HOW MAKE ANYTHING BE OUT
#* Version 0.2 (and a little more so 0.21) has marked all but the most essential properties as ''experimental''. There use is not at all discouraged but implementors are warned that these properties may be removed from later version if they aren't used in real world applications. This uptake by implementors should be observed and studied before a final descision is made. A proposed timeframe would be at least a few months, maybe  even a year or two, depending on how many implemetations surface in the meantime. --[[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 11:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
HOW EVERYTHING OUT
#* I checked the usage of the hRecipe format today and was delighted to see that Yahoo! searchmonkey lists 56.000 of them (search Yahoo for "searchmonkey:com.yahoo.page.uf.recipe"). The site I work for is responsible for about 12.000 of them but when i checked the first 70 results none of them was from our site :-) In fact they almost all came from personal sites, blogs and the like and this is really great! It was also very interesting to see that a lot of them came from WordPress Blogs which shows that the WordPress Plugin for hRecipe is very useful. But back to the issue: I checked the first 60 or so results and about 2/3 of them where really using hRecipe. 17 of them were from different sites(*) (**).
HOW MAKE EVERYTHING OUT
 
HOW EVERYTHING BE OUT
It's never bad to gather some empirical data to make an informed decision, so I took the burden to count element use. Actually this didn't take much more then an hour, so if somebody wants to check the results from 61 to ... feel free! Well, now, without futher ado, the results:
HOW MAKE EVERYTHING BE OUT
<pre>
HOW UNIVERSE OUT
16  fn   
HOW MAKE UNIVERSE OUT
17  ingredient (3 value, 3 type)
HOW UNIVERSE BE OUT
  3  yield
HOW MAKE UNIVERSE BE OUT
15  instructions 
HOW THING THROUGH
  3  duration
HOW MAKE THING THROUGH
  4  photo
HOW THING BE THROUGH
  9  summary
HOW MAKE THING BE THROUGH
  4  author
HOW ANYTHING THROUGH
  3  published
HOW MAKE ANYTHING THROUGH
  1  nutrition (0 value, 0 type)
HOW ANYTHING BE THROUGH
  2  tag
HOW MAKE ANYTHING BE THROUGH
</pre>
HOW EVERYTHING THROUGH
Of course this is not representative, but it gives a fairly good impression. If you add our site (or 20% of all published hRecipes ;) you can add +1 to all elements since we use everything...
HOW MAKE EVERYTHING THROUGH
 
HOW EVERYTHING BE THROUGH
 
HOW MAKE EVERYTHING BE THROUGH
Evaluation:
HOW UNIVERSE THROUGH
 
HOW MAKE UNIVERSE THROUGH
"fn", "ingredient" and "instructions" are no-brainers. Also "summary" is surprisingly strong and the intuition, that it's a strong part of how people communicate on recipes, seems to be right.
HOW UNIVERSE BE THROUGH
 
HOW MAKE UNIVERSE BE THROUGH
"author" and "published" probably didn't get so much used because on a blog they are provided anyway and most of the sites investigated were blogs. OTOH they aren't important for the functionality of a recipe and can be added by other means. So maybe they should be removed for the sake of terseness.
HOW THING OUT
 
HOW MAKE THING OUT
"photo" was definitely less used than there were photos added to recipes. And I know a lot of people who, when showed 2 recipes, one with and one without photo, almost certainly choose the one with photo. So IMHO it should stay.
HOW THING BE OUT
 
HOW MAKE THING BE OUT
"yield" was used surprisingly seldomly. Isn't it an essential addition to the ingredients list? Maybe the yield is often self-explanatory, maybe this reflects the fact, that also the value and type of ingredients wasn't marked up most of the time. 'Smallishness' would certainly suggest to omit all the three: "value", "type" and yield". People seem to feel that the "ingredient" field naturally holds information not only about the name of the ingredient but about type and value too and don't bother to mark these up explicitly. Again for big sites which generate their content from databases the cost-benefit ratio is totally different...
HOW ANYTHING OUT
 
HOW MAKE ANYTHING OUT
"duration" would be a candidate for removal as well. But still, remember that this list only reflects usage of the elements. An information of duration was part of the recipe more often than it was marked up as such.
HOW ANYTHING BE OUT
 
HOW MAKE ANYTHING BE OUT
"tag" obviously didn't get used much and is maybe strong enough on it's own. People add tags no matter if they are part of a vocabulary, and the rel-tag pattern is certainly easy enough to grasp and straightforward to implement.
HOW EVERYTHING OUT
But the WordPress plugin added a tagging vocabulary on it's own (how dare they... ;-) which did get used most of the time. So tagging principally is strong. Well, I still don't have a clue on this one.
HOW MAKE EVERYTHING OUT
 
HOW EVERYTHING BE OUT
"nutrition" is definitely a candidate for removal, maybe into it's own vocabulary. OTOH, big commercially backed sites very often provide nutritional information and when provided it is a much more integral part of the information context than say the author. So maybe it should stay?
HOW MAKE EVERYTHING BE OUT
The full result-set, including URLs:
HOW UNIVERSE OUT
<pre>
HOW MAKE UNIVERSE OUT
    fn  ingredient v t  yield  instructions  duration  photo  summary  author  published  nutrition v t  tag
HOW UNIVERSE BE OUT
http://nissasham.blog.com/
HOW MAKE UNIVERSE BE OUT
    x    x                        x                                          x                    x              x
http://reciperiot.blog.com/
        x                                                                    x                                    x
http://www.greenworld365.com/twice-baked-buttermilk-potatoes/
    x    x
http://peachquilting.com/2009/04/beef-with-garlic-potatoes/  (wordpress plugin)
    x    x                        x                                  x
http://fivepennynicole.com/blog/2008/10/29/world-series-caramel-corn/  (wordpress plugin)
    x    x                        x                        x        x        x        x
http://www.theslowcook.com/2009/04/23/shrimp-stir-fry/ (wordpress plugin)
    x    x                        x
http://bitten.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/addictive-mac-and-cheese/    well ... very freestyle
    x    x                x      x
http://au.food.yahoo.com/recipes/recipe/-/5346170/baked-chicken-ravioli/
    x    x                x        x
http://humblegourmand.com/recipes/grovestand-lemon-cupcakes/
    x    x                x      x              x        x        x
http://www.f00die.com/
    x    x                        x                                  x
http://www.thebarkersworld.com/  (wordpress plugin)
    x    x                        x                                  x
http://www.murraywilliams.com/cooking/souffle.html
    x    x                        x                                  x
http://cookingwithbooze.org/beer/beer-brats/
    x    x                        x                                  x
http://itsripe.com/recipes/11-kale-smoothie
    x    x          x x          x              x          x        x        x      x
http://xavierroy.com/blog/chicken-legs-in-lemon-basil-mustard-sauce
    x    x          x x          x              x          x        x                x
http://www.f00die.com/2008/06/17/hobo-potatoes-w-arugula/
    x    x          x x          x
http://www.todayonpei.com/?p=5420
    x    x                        x
</pre>
 
 
(*) well, more of them, I skipped some WordPress Blogs since they all came from the same Plugin. But as the feature set of the Plugin continues to grow it doesn't make much sense to investigate them too thoroughly now unless you want to take into account which version of the plugin was used exactly etc etc - an undertaking I'm not really up to ;-)
 
(**) I felt quite bad when I saw that a lot of them used the pre-0.2 version with "title", "method" etc but I really don't know what I could do about it now (or then, too). I guess these decisions are made and the pain will diminish over time (cough).
--[[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 17:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
</div>
</div>
 
<div class="hentry">
{{OpenIssue}} <span class="entry-summary author vcard"><span class="published">2009-07-01</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:BenWard|BenWard]]</span></span>
<div class="entry-content discussion issues">
* <strong class="entry-title">Reconsidering semantic of <code>published</code> over ‘<code>created</code>’</strong>. I think the reuse of <code>published</code> from [[hAtom]] may be incorrect. Given its use in hAtom, <code>published</code> represents the date and time that the content was originally published to the page. In the case of a recipe, it seems that you would instead want to represent the date that the recipe was authored/created, which is subtly different. The publication of a recipe on a web page is something that should be done with hAtom itself (publishing an <code>hEntry</code> that contains the recipe), but the recipe itself would contain the date that ''the recipe itself'' was created. e.g. <samp>I came up with this recipe for mashed potato in &lt;span class='created'>&lt;span class='value-title' title='2008-08'>last summer&lt;/span>&lt;/span></samp>. I'm totally open to ideas about this, but my feeling is that it's unnecessary to represent the publication date since that should be represented by a complete hAtom entry. Do we think that <code>created</code> as described here falls inside the 80:20?
** I agree with your interpretation of "published" versus "created". "published" is not used very often on it's own (see above) and I'm sure "created" would be used much less so - because it often is very difficult to determine when a recipe was created, when it was modified enough to count as newly created, from where (and when) it originated etc. IMO "published" MAY be out of the 80:20, but "created" certainly IS. You raise a point though that I'm thinking heavily about right now. I'm pondering if it would be wise to move most of the properties that are currently marked as "experimental" out of the draft and refer to them only (but explicitly) as possibly useful additions to a hRecipe. I would then add hReview as well and, from the 'experimental' properties, only leave "Nutrition" within the property set of hRecipe. But I need to think about that a little more. Anyway: I think your point is valid but should be part of a broader approach. --[[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 15:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
</div>
</div>
 
<div class="hentry">{{OpenIssue}}
<span class="entry-summary author vcard"><span class="published">2010-04-28</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:Phae|Phae]]</span></span><div class="entry-content discussion issues">* <strong class="entry-title">Describing variable durations of preparation time.</strong>. 
BBC food has a problem whereby they'd like to show duration of preparation time with a minimum/maximum value.  In plain english : "This recipe takes between 10 and 30 minutes to prepare".  Google Rich Snippets provides a mechanism to show min/max in prepTime (although at the moment their visual preview is failing to accurately display these values) - how could we make it easier to specify min/max duration values in hRecipe?  Reuse of duration is available, but is that sufficient? ISO time has been recommended for use, but this kind of value is not an interval of time.
* Could you post URLs to [[recipe-examples]] of real world recipe (perhaps from BBC) that have preparation time with minimum/maximum and perhaps expected/average durations in the visible content? Having the actual content and existing markup to view/analyze would greatly help inform a better solution. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 18:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
** Pretty much all of the BBC recipes have ranges for cooking/prep times, e.g. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/macaronicheese_83521 Macaroni Cheese] (cook time: min 0, max 30 mins; prep time: min 10 mins, max 30 mins), [http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/roastedchickenbreast_93803 Roasted chicken breast] (cook time: min 0, max 30 mins; prep time: min 1 hrs, max 2 hrs). Currently we're just taking the max value as the time value. [[User:Ironsidevsquincy|Ironsidevsquincy]] 16:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
</div>
</div>
 
== resolved issues ==
<div class="vevent">
* {{ResolvedIssue}} <span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2008-12-27</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:Tantek|Tantek Çelik]]</span></span>
<div class="description">
*# '''author is re-used from hAtom not hCard'''. minor issue. the "author" property is actually re-used from [[hAtom]] rather than hCard - hCard has no such property.
*#* Yikes! Corrected... [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 17:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
</div>
</div>
 
 
<div class="vevent">
* {{ResolvedIssue}}<span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2008-01-17</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:Yde|Yde]]</span></span>
<div class="description">
*  '''method'''. Would it make sense to [[reuse]] [[hreview|hReview's]] "description" instead of hRecipe's "method" or is this stretching the semantics too far?
** I just discovered that hCalender uses "method", and with totally different semantics. So I guess we MUST change it. I'm not very happy with "description" though - that's a very unspecific term. Maybe "instructions", or "steps", or "preparation" , or "procedure"? They are all 'available'.  I like "instructions" most, but since I'm not a native speaker I'm hesitant. Maybe the semantics are too different? Maybe "preparation" is better since we already almost have it (or had it - see the discussion about "preparation-time" -> "duration" above)? [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 12:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
** Since no further comments surfaced I'll change the property name to "instructions". I think it's a fairly unambiguous name which also can easily be reused in other formats. [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 14:30, 2 Febuary 2009 (UTC)
</div>
</div>
 
 
<div class="vevent">
* {{ResolvedIssue}} <span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2008-12-27</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:Tantek|Tantek Çelik]]</span></span>
<div class="description discussion issues">
# '''Unnecessary recipe prefixing of summary property.''' Note: this is a re-opening of an issue from [[recipe-issues]]. The usage of summary in recipes appears to be very similar to that used for events. Rephrased, insufficient (if any?) evidence has been provided that summary means anything "special" enough (distinguishing it from the generic term "summary" as used in microformats) in the context of recipes to merit prefixing and thus a new property.
#* proposed resolution: Re-use generic "summary" property rather than introducing a recipe microformat scoped "recipe-summary" property.
#* I agree principally but there are different "summary"s around: The [[hReview]]-Draft specifies a summary as "This optional field serves as a title for the review itself" while the [[hCalendar]] Draft refers to RFC 2445 which defines summary as "This property defines a short summary or subject for the calendar component". I certainly agree more with the semantics from RFC 2445 but referring to either of the two doesn't make much sense right now. Since you are editor of both hReview and hCalendar maybe you can clarify the subject?  If  hReview would be aligned with RFC 2445 then I would promote  dropping the prefix.[[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 17:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
#** Agreed, the definitions of "summary" across hCalendar and hReview could be better converged. Please add this as an issue to both [[hcalendar-issues]] and [[hreview-issues]] and I'll follow-up there accordingly.  Given that is the path forward, let's fix this immediately in hRecipe now that the issue (and resolution) has been captured. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 20:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
#*** Will change "recipe-summary" to "summary" as defined in hCalender/RFC2445. [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 15:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
</div>
</div>
 
 
<div class="vevent">
* {{ResolvedIssue}} <span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2008-12-27</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:Tantek|Tantek Çelik]]</span></span>
<div class="description discussion issues">
# '''preparation-time could re-use duration instead''' - it appears that the "preparation-time" semantic basically means the "duration" of the recipe, and thus could re-use that property from [[hCalendar]] rather than introducing a new property name.
#* proposed resolution: change "preparation-time" to "duration" and note re-use from [[hCalendar]] - or at least document how preparation-time is a different enough semantic from "duration" to justify the introduction of a new term.
#* One difference is that hCalendar ''duration'' is a singular property whereas hRecipe's ''preparation-time'' is plural. Also, ''preparation-time'' will often (typically) use value+note subproperties, while ''duration'' will usually be an ISO 8601 duration. [[User:TobyInk|TobyInk]] 20:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
#** Plurality is a contextual aspect and does not alter the semantic of the underlying property, thus is insufficient justification for introducing a new term.  We do not use duplicates of each property in a singular and plural form. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 20:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
#** Syntax differences (value+note vs ISO 8601) are also insufficient to justify the introduction of a new property for the same semantic. Rather, it is better to expand the syntax of the existing property, e.g. perhaps using the [[value-excerption-pattern]] and to note that explicitly. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 20:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
#*** Semantically the reuse of "duration" is okay.  RFC 2445 permits multiple duration values "if the property permits" so that should be fine too. If the syntactic differences can be worked out the way Tantek suggests above than it's okay with me to re-use "duration". I'm just not sure if it helps usability to overload properties in such a way but that ay be another discussion on it's own. [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 15:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
#** The observation that preparation-time uses a nested "note" subproperty may actually reveal a problem with that approach itself, that is, perhaps instead of "preparation-time" with "value" and "note" subproperties, it may be better to refactor it as a "preparation" (an act thereof) with "duration" and "note" subproperties. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 20:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
#*** Removed the sub-property "note" from the v_0.2 draft format since I now agree that it looks a little overengineered. [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 12:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
</div>
</div>
 
 
<div class="vevent">
* {{ResolvedIssue}}  '''issues too long''' <span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2009-01-22</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]]</span></span>
<div class="description">
As threatened 2 weeks ago I heavily re-edited this page because discussions had become a little frayed (and heated at soem points). Have a look at the [http://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hrecipe-issues&oldid=37788 previous version] for the full debate and feel free to re-edit this page if you find that I axed it too much. [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 14:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
</div>
</div>
 
 
<div class="vevent">
* {{ResolvedIssue}} '''new draft'''<span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2009-01-22</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]]</span></span>
<div class="description">
* The following is a proposal for draft 0.2, reflecting the issues discussed so far. "recipe-title" is replaced with "fn" from hCard (although I'm not convinced that this is a good idea),  "recipe-summary" with "summary", "num" and "unit" from the unfinished 'measure' with "type" and "value" from 'hCard' (i only recently discovered them...), "method" (wihch is already used by [[hCalendar]] with "instructions", "preparation-time" with "duration". Two "note"s are deleted for brevity. "summary", "nutrition", "author", "published" and "photo" are marked as 'experimental', meaning that they may be removed from future drafts or the final specification, depending on experience and feedback from implementations :
</div>
 
=== '''hrecipe'''. Proposal for Draft 0.2 ===
 
* '''fn'''. the name of the recipe. required. text. re-used from [[hCard]]
* '''ingredient''' required. 1 or more. text with optional valid (x)HTML markup.
** '''value''' and '''type'''. optional. re-used from [[hCard]].
* '''yield'''. optional. text.
* '''instructions'''. optional. text with optional valid (x)HTML markup.
* '''duration'''. optional. 1 or more. text (see [[ISO-31-1]] duration brainstorming). re-used from [[hCalendar]].
* '''''summary'''''. optional. text. re-used from [[hCalendar]]. [ ''experimental'' ]
* '''''nutrition'''''. optional. 1 or more. [ ''experimental'' ].
** '''''value''''' and '''''type'''''. optional. re-used from [[hCard]]. [ ''experimental'' ].
* '''''author'''''. optional. 1 or more. re-used from [[hAtom]] using [[hCard]]. [ ''experimental'' ].
* '''''published'''''. optional. re-used from [[hAtom]]. [ ''experimental'' ].
* '''''photo'''''. optional. 1 or more. using any element containing a URL, such as IMG. re-used from [[hCard]]. [ ''experimental'' ].
* '''''tag'''''. optional. 1 or more.  [ ''experimental'' ].
--[[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 11:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 
** <strong id="issue-20100325">The above seems to use ''value'' very differently to other microformats</strong>. In other microformats it's used for [[value-class-pattern|value excerpting]] in most properties (i.e. the ''value'' class is used to indicate which text should be parsed with the rest being ignored); and in a handful of particular properties (e.g. hCard tel, email, adr, label) it's used in the ''value''+''type'' combination to indicate the main text that should be parsed while ''type'' refines the meaning of the property. In a recipe ingredient, the main idea to get across would be the ingredient itself (e.g. eggs, whisky, cardamom), so if ''value'' were to be used, you'd expect it to be more like this: <code>&lt;li class="ingredient">2 &lt;span class="value">eggs&lt;/span>, lightly whisked&lt;/li></code>. Wrapping <code>class=value</code> around the '2' is fairly at odds with how that class is used in other microformats. [[User:TobyInk|TobyInk]] 15:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
*** Suggestion: remove these subproperties from the ingredient and nutrition properties. [[User:TobyInk|TobyInk]] 15:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
</div>
**** +1 I concur with Toby's analysis and recommendation. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 17:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 
== closed issues ==
 
 
<div class="vevent">
* {{ClosedIssue}} <span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2008-12-27</span> raised by <span class="fn">[[User:Tantek|Tantek Çelik]]</span> in the context of issue '''Too many properties'''</span>
<div class="description discussion issues">
# '''Drop "recipe-title".''' In reviewing the examples, few (if any?) include *both* a title and a summary, and in practice the semantics of usage in the context of recipes appears to be virtually indistinguishable.  Therefore we don't need both, and following in the pattern provided by [[hCalendar]] (which got it from [[RFC2445]]), we should keep the more generic concept of a "summary" and drop the concept of "title" from hRecipe.
#* I tend to agree. There are definitely use cases for both "recipe-title/title/fn" and "recipe-summary/summary" - e.g. "[http://www.simonwheatley.co.uk/2006/03/26/a-moroccan-ish-casserole/ A Moroccan-ish Casserole]" sounds more like a summary while "[http://blog.bumblepuppy.org.uk/2006/10/05/spaghetti-primavera/ Spaghetti primavera]" is the full name or the title of the recipe. But the problem is, they would serve the same purpose. [[User:Yde|Yde]] 10:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
#** Title and summary are different things and they are used differently in the real world. The examples you give are both names/titles/labels/headings, although more or less descriptive. They are short, memorable and make the thing adressable by humans. A summary can be (and mostly is) much longer and serves a different purpose: it describes essential properties of the object at hand, eg: "this is easy and fast to prepare, but still looks impressive", "easy, tasty, fast, vegan, good on cold days" or "the kids loved this last summer, but the ingredients can be hard to get" or "whenever i cook this i start to dream of ..." [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 14:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
#*** Right, on second thought, I believe "title/name" and "summary" are different things. [[User:Yde|Yde]] 11:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
#* The term "title" has been so horribly overloaded across formats, vocabularies that it is nearly meaningless and for that reason should be avoided in any/all format efforts, preferring instead something more semantically specific such as "fn" (meaning full/formatted name of an item) or "summary" (when items are labeled more often with a short description/explanation rather than a name). [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 20:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
#** Synonyms and homonyms are part of the real world - we have to cope with them. Also the word "title" is not horribly overloaded, you're exaggerating here. It just happened that hCard were the first to use it, and in a way that's empirically much less important then the use of "title" as the heading of a resource. Still the real problem is that Microformats have only one namespace and no resolution mechanism for conflicts like this, beside "first come first served". [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 15:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
#** Maybe it would be better to make a clear cut with some of the sins of the past and deprecate some terms in hCard / hCalendar[[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 15:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
#* "fn" is [[existing-classes|defined]] as "the name of the object" which is pretty much what "recipe-title" means right now. So, whether we chose to keep this property, summary, or both, renaming "recipe-title" to "fn" would make sense. [[User:Yde|Yde]] 23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
#** the definition of "fn" in [[existing-classes|existing classes]] is maybe a little too short. "fn" is defined in hCard which is a reformulation of RFC 2462, which says: "Type name:FN - Type purpose: To specify the formatted text corresponding to the name of the object the vCard represents. -Type special notes: This type is based on the semantics of the X.520 Common Name attribute. The property MUST be present in the vCard object. - Type example:  'FN:Mr. John Q. Public\, Esq.'" (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2426.txt, on page 8). That clearly means a name of a person or an institution. Institution equals a juristical person, so "fn" semantically boils down to 'name of a person'. I wouldn't use that for every object.  [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 14:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
#*** Thanks for the clarification. "fn" is definitely not a good idea. [[User:Yde|Yde]] 10:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
#*** <code>fn</code> is already reused more generically in hAudio, hReview and hListing (for items). The definition of use within microformats has already been adapted from the strict vcard interpretation in prior work. --[[User:BenWard|BenWard]] 23:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
#**** I see. I can't help but thinking: what a mess... What's the family name of a recipe, audio-recording or list-entry? What's the point of re-using a semantically totally void two-letter-acronym, when it doesn't even fit very well? What's the point of reusing an element when I have to lookup the meaning of it every time anyway? [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 00:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
#***** <code>fn</code> is ''formatted''-name, not ‘family’. ‘Name as presented’, ‘display name’. I agree that <code>fn</code> takes a double glance when you're learning, but it's there and the reuse in other specs is consistent; there's a much stronger author benefit in building on common equivalent-semantic vocabulary than introducing synonyms, which I think will cause more confusion. Better to have a strong spec with common vocabulary than introduce duplication. I'll keep in mind that we should better emphasise the expansion of <code>fn</code> in all specs for benefit of new authors. I can see how ‘family name’ is a muddle too easily made in hCard. --[[User:BenWard|BenWard]] 07:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
#****** I was referring to the fact that a name of a natural or juridical person is semantically quite different to the name of an object. Other things like the opacity of the two-letter-code "fn" are indeed problematic too but not my main issue here. That vCard-legacy seems to be lurking around every corner. Why not make a clear cut and deprecate the problematic parts like "title" and "fn"? The approach to rather overload the semantics (and the property-constraints) just to keep element-count low only takes that far. In the end it hinders usability instead of improving it. I think [[reuse]] and [[naming-principles]] don't strike the right balance in that respect. [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 11:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
#* why not define a property "name"?! From my understanding of the english language (I'm not a native speaker)  "name" is semantically generic enough to  serve as a substitute for "title". Defining it rather broadly as "designation or title or denominator or heading of an item" would make it easily reusable. Plus we would have to explicitely discourage it's use for naming real or juristical persons and point to "fn" instead. [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 12:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
#** Hmmm. I would really like to get feedback on this... Again my argumentation:
#*** <code>title</code> would be the best solution but is already "taken". Depercating some of hCalenders sins would be the best solution but seems out of reach so far.
#*** <code>heading</code> would be a possible solution either but seems more suited for prose
#*** <code>name</code> gets the semantics quite well, especially in the case of recipes which are more a "thing" or abstract conceptualization than a work of literature/science/prose
#*** <code>fn</code> with it's subproperties is geared towards natural and juristical persons, which are quite different from things and concepts. Also semantics of the term "fn" are rather opaque, even misleading, which hinder it's usability.
#** Therefor I'd love "title", could live very well with "name", could live still well with "heading" and would sleep bad (but sleep) with "fn". [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 16:30, 2 Febuary 2009 (UTC)
#** Okay, since there's no response I bow my head to "fn". But it speaks for itself that it's the only tag that has to be explained in the schema.  [[User:ThomasLoertsch|ThomasLoertsch]] 11:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
</div>
</div>
 
 
 
 
 
===template===
{{issues-format}}
 
==related pages==
* [[hRecipe]]
* [[hrecipe-feedback|hRecipe feedback]] - general feedback regarding hRecipe
 
Per the microformats [[process]], the [[recipe]] effort developed
* [[recipe-examples]]
* [[recipe-formats]]
* [[recipe-brainstorming]] (see also [[recipe-brainstorming-archive]])
* [[recipe-issues]]
towards the development of this draft.

Revision as of 19:38, 25 August 2013

HOW THING THROUGH HOW MAKE THING THROUGH HOW THING BE THROUGH HOW MAKE THING BE THROUGH HOW ANYTHING THROUGH HOW MAKE ANYTHING THROUGH HOW ANYTHING BE THROUGH HOW MAKE ANYTHING BE THROUGH HOW EVERYTHING THROUGH HOW MAKE EVERYTHING THROUGH HOW EVERYTHING BE THROUGH HOW MAKE EVERYTHING BE THROUGH HOW UNIVERSE THROUGH HOW MAKE UNIVERSE THROUGH HOW UNIVERSE BE THROUGH HOW MAKE UNIVERSE BE THROUGH HOW THING OUT HOW MAKE THING OUT HOW THING BE OUT HOW MAKE THING BE OUT HOW ANYTHING OUT HOW MAKE ANYTHING OUT HOW ANYTHING BE OUT HOW MAKE ANYTHING BE OUT HOW EVERYTHING OUT HOW MAKE EVERYTHING OUT HOW EVERYTHING BE OUT HOW MAKE EVERYTHING BE OUT HOW UNIVERSE OUT HOW MAKE UNIVERSE OUT HOW UNIVERSE BE OUT HOW MAKE UNIVERSE BE OUT HOW THING THROUGH HOW MAKE THING THROUGH HOW THING BE THROUGH HOW MAKE THING BE THROUGH HOW ANYTHING THROUGH HOW MAKE ANYTHING THROUGH HOW ANYTHING BE THROUGH HOW MAKE ANYTHING BE THROUGH HOW EVERYTHING THROUGH HOW MAKE EVERYTHING THROUGH HOW EVERYTHING BE THROUGH HOW MAKE EVERYTHING BE THROUGH HOW UNIVERSE THROUGH HOW MAKE UNIVERSE THROUGH HOW UNIVERSE BE THROUGH HOW MAKE UNIVERSE BE THROUGH HOW THING OUT HOW MAKE THING OUT HOW THING BE OUT HOW MAKE THING BE OUT HOW ANYTHING OUT HOW MAKE ANYTHING OUT HOW ANYTHING BE OUT HOW MAKE ANYTHING BE OUT HOW EVERYTHING OUT HOW MAKE EVERYTHING OUT HOW EVERYTHING BE OUT HOW MAKE EVERYTHING BE OUT HOW UNIVERSE OUT HOW MAKE UNIVERSE OUT HOW UNIVERSE BE OUT HOW MAKE UNIVERSE BE OUT

Retrieved from "http://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hrecipe-issues&oldid=60728"