Revision as of 16:08, 19 October 2010 by MarcusJT (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)

Jump to: navigation, search

hReview issues

These are externally raised issues about hReview with broadly varying degrees of merit. Thus some issues are REJECTED for a number of obvious reasons (but still documented here in case they are re-raised), and others contain longer discussions. Some issues may be ACCEPTED and perhaps cause changes or improved explanations in the spec.

IMPORTANT: Please read the hReview FAQ before giving any feedback or raising any issues as your feedback/issues may already be resolved/answered.

Submitted issues may (and probably will) be edited and rewritten for better terseness, clarity, calmness, rationality, and as neutral a point of view as possible. Write your issues well. — Tantek

Please add new issues to the top of the list. Please follow-up to resolved/rejected issues with new information rather than resubmitting such issues. Duplicate issue additions will be reverted.

See related hcalendar-issues and hcard-issues.




I suggest using the ins tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.

<ins class="dtreviewed" datetime="20050418">April 18th, 2005</ins>


OpenIssue 2005-01-04 by David Janes:

Atom defines rel="self" here

The value "self" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies a resource equivalent to the containing element.

HTML rel="boomark" here

Refers to a bookmark. A bookmark is a link to a key entry point within an extended document. The title attribute may be used, for example, to label the bookmark. Note that several bookmarks may be defined in each document.

Since we're using "bookmark" to mean the entry point to the hReview, isn't the "self" redundant or overly subtle?




  • ISBNs should not be used as unique IDs for hReviews.

As I was reading the spec, I came across the following for the definition of the item portion of hReview: "Non-URL unique item IDs (e.g. ISBNs, UPCs) MAY be represented as a URN ("url") for the item." If you look at's website, they warn strongly against using ISBNs as unique IDs because often times, a book with the same title may have different ISBNs. Often, when we think of a book, what we really mean is a title. A book is just a particular publication of a title. As we know, books for a title can come in many different formats: softcover, hardcover, large print, illustrated, etc. Each publication will have a different ISBN.

There is no encoding within the ISBN number that accounts for whether a book of a certain title is a softcover or hardcover, rather, merely because they are two separately published items from the same or different publishers, they will have different ISBNs. This is especially problematic for hReview since that microformat is meant for aggregation. It is possible that reviews for a single title will be split across many different books simply because each review is tied to a (possibly) different ISBN. This makes it much more difficult to aggregate reviews for such items as books (ahem—or should I say, titles ;) ).

By using some other way to uniquely identify titles, reviews for titles can be aggregated and displayed for each instance of a title (e.g., a book). I know that unique identifiers are out of scope for hReview. I'm only suggesting that reviews should not use the ISBN of a book as a way to identify the title to which the review refers.

    • No follow-up comments have been left yet.

open issue!

raised by Marcus Tucker.

  • Percentages.

Just as stars (e.g. 3 stars out of 5) are a universal way of representing scores/ratings, so are percentages (e.g. 60%). However, at present percentages aren't mentioned anywhere in the hReview standard, let alone catered for specifically, despite there being countless examples of percentages used for review ratings across the web.

I can't find any trace of discussion relating to the inclusion of percentages in the hReview standard, so for the time being I can only assume that it is an oversight, but I cannot fathom how this could be so.

Anyway, I propose that just as the standard already requires that a number by itself (e.g. 3) should (in the absence of best/worst metadata) be interpreted as 3 out of 5, so a number followed (with or without space) by a percentage sign (e.g. 60%) should be acceptable, as it literally translates to 60 out of 100 (with a minimum of 0), and can be translated to the 1-5 rating format relatively easily, though dealing with percentages of less than 10% needs some thought given the default rating range of 1.0 to 5.0 that hReview currently defines.

open issue!

raised by Marcus Tucker.

  • hReview does not currently support data stored in VALUE attributes.

In some situations the rating (or other desired hReview value) may currently be expressed neither as plain text nor TITLE attribute as the standard currently allows for, but instead as a VALUE attribute of a form element, an extreme example being as a VALUE of the (SELECTED) OPTION element of a SELECT element (which unfortunately is the real-world code that I have to work with and cannot completely rework as I would like to due to cost implications).

Alas the current hReview standard does not seem to provide any mechanism for marking up ratings expressed as a VALUE attribute and hence cannot be applied in such situations without significantly altering the structure/format/elements of the HTML - hence I suggest that a third, general solution needs to be devised to permit the use of hReview in such situations (i.e. where an important microformat data value is stored in a VALUE attribute).


Consider using this format (copy and paste this to the end of the list to add your issues; replace ~~~ with an external link if preferred) to report issues or feedback, so that issues can show up in hAtom subscriptions of this issues page. If open issues lack this markup, please add it.

Please post one issue per entry, to make them easier to manage. Avoid combining multiple issues into single reports, as this can confuse or muddle feedback, and puts a burden of separating the discrete issues onto someone else who 1. may not have the time, and 2. may not understand the issue in the same way as the original reporter.

<div class="hentry">
<span class="entry-summary author vcard">
 <span class="published">2011-MM-DD</span> 
 raised by <span class="fn">~~~</span>
<div class="entry-content discussion issues">
* <strong class="entry-title">«Short title of issue»</strong>. «Description of Issue»
** Follow-up comment #1
** Follow-up comment #2

Resolved Issues

Issues that are resolved but may have outstanding to-do items.

Closed Issues

Resolved issues that have no further actions to take.

default lower bound

default range

Specification Clarifications

Date and Time

Related pages

hreview-issues was last modified: Wednesday, December 31st, 1969