hreview-faq: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
m (→hReview FAQ) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This page is for documenting Q&A about [[hreview|hReview]]. If you have a new question to ask, Please consider first asking your question on the [http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss/ microformats-discuss] list. | This page is for documenting Q&A about [[hreview|hReview]]. If you have a new question to ask, Please consider first asking your question on the [http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss/ microformats-discuss] list. | ||
== Q&A == | |||
# ''How do you specify more detail for the 'type' field, e.g. for an item of type "product" that is a book, or a movie (on DVD or in a theater), or a music CD? -- paraphrased from [[User:Dougal Campbell|Dougal Campbell]] 11:54, 21 Jun 2005 (PDT)'' | # ''How do you specify more detail for the 'type' field, e.g. for an item of type "product" that is a book, or a movie (on DVD or in a theater), or a music CD? -- paraphrased from [[User:Dougal Campbell|Dougal Campbell]] 11:54, 21 Jun 2005 (PDT)'' | ||
Revision as of 00:17, 5 July 2005
hReview FAQ
This page is for documenting Q&A about hReview. If you have a new question to ask, Please consider first asking your question on the microformats-discuss list.
Q&A
- How do you specify more detail for the 'type' field, e.g. for an item of type "product" that is a book, or a movie (on DVD or in a theater), or a music CD? -- paraphrased from Dougal Campbell 11:54, 21 Jun 2005 (PDT)
- The 'type' field was kept delibrately coarse and simple. Any attempt to build a thorough and meaningful taxonomy of all specific types of things that can be reviewed would be futile. Instead, the set of reviewed item types is kept small and fairly generic. Specific "typing" information about the item being reviewed should be published as tags as defined in hReview. E.g. a review of a book would be tagged with a book tag:
<a rel="tag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book">book</a>. Similarly a movie that was a DVD should be tagged with both:<a rel="tag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie">movie</a> <a rel="tag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD">DVD</a>. Or a music CD:<a rel="tag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/music">music</a> <a rel="tag" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD">CD</a>.
- The 'type' field was kept delibrately coarse and simple. Any attempt to build a thorough and meaningful taxonomy of all specific types of things that can be reviewed would be futile. Instead, the set of reviewed item types is kept small and fairly generic. Specific "typing" information about the item being reviewed should be published as tags as defined in hReview. E.g. a review of a book would be tagged with a book tag:
- What is the difference between the 'website' and 'url' type? --Dougal Campbell 11:54, 21 Jun 2005 (PDT)
- A 'website' presumably includes everything located on that site, whereas 'url' refers only to the particular page located at the given 'url'.
- What if I want to use hReview to review a podcast? Which type should I use?
- As a podcast is typically a specific URL (often ending with ".mp3") the "url" item type should be used when publishing an hReview of a podcast.