<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://microformats.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Codeguru413</id>
	<title>Microformats Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Codeguru413"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Codeguru413"/>
	<updated>2026-04-21T08:51:48Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.38.4</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hreview-issues&amp;diff=42798</id>
		<title>hreview-issues</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hreview-issues&amp;diff=42798"/>
		<updated>2010-07-10T20:37:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Codeguru413: /* Item */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;h1&amp;gt; hReview issues &amp;lt;/h1&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are externally raised issues about [[hreview|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.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''IMPORTANT''': Please read the [[hreview-faq|hReview FAQ]] ''before'' giving any feedback or raising any issues as your feedback/issues may already be resolved/answered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. — [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See related [[hcalendar-issues]] and [[hcard-issues]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== dtreviewed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*{{OpenIssue}} 2010-04-09 raised by [[User:Aroot|Andy Root]]&lt;br /&gt;
*# My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;abbr&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; tag. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner. This would makes sense if the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;abbr&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; tag was intended for that use but it is being used in the opposite manner. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them. This is not a good user experience not to mention the issues around accessibility. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;I suggest using the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;ins&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ins class=&amp;quot;dtreviewed&amp;quot; datetime=&amp;quot;20050418&amp;quot;&amp;gt;April 18th, 2005&amp;lt;/ins&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== rel=&amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OpenIssue 2005-01-04 by [[User:DavidJanes|David Janes]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atom defines rel=&amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; [http://atompub.org/2005/07/11/draft-ietf-atompub-format-10.html#rfc.section.4.2.7 here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The value &amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies a resource equivalent to the containing element.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HTML rel=&amp;amp;quot;boomark&amp;amp;quot; [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since we're using &amp;amp;quot;bookmark&amp;amp;quot; to mean the entry point to the hReview, isn't the &amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; redundant or overly subtle?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multilinguism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*{{OpenIssue}} 2006-03-22 raised by Fil&lt;br /&gt;
*# the reviewer spec can't say ''For anonymous reviews, use &amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot; (without quotes) for the full name of the reviewer.'' as this word (&amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot;) is going to be apparent on the page, and is not multilingual (and even in English someone might want to use another word, like &amp;quot;an anonymous coward&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Price ===&lt;br /&gt;
* {{OpenIssue}} 2006-04-04 raised by [[User:Evan|Evan]].&lt;br /&gt;
*# It doesn't seem possible to give an approximate, average, or absolute '''price''' of the product or service in question. Examples: for a piece of software, the suggested retail price. For a restaurant, average price of an entree, ''or'' a '''price range'''. Prices should almost definitely have a ''currency'' marker and an ''amount''. Suggestion: ''&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;price&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;abbr class=&amp;quot;currency&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;Canadian dollars&amp;quot;&amp;gt;$&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;amount&amp;quot;&amp;gt;10.99&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;''. For a range, ''&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;pricerange&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;price&amp;quot;&amp;gt; ... &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;price&amp;quot;&amp;gt; ... &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;hentry&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Item ===&lt;br /&gt;
*{{OpenIssue}} &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;entry-summary author vcard&amp;quot;&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;published&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;2010-07-10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;2010-07-10&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; raised by &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;fn&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Codeguru413|Codeguru413]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;entry-content discussion issues&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong class=&amp;quot;entry-title&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s should not be used as unique IDs for [[hReview]]s&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading the spec, I came across the following for the definition of the &amp;lt;b&amp;gt;item&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; portion of [[hReview]]: &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Non-&amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;Uniform Resource Locator&amp;quot;&amp;gt;URL&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; unique item IDs (e.g. &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s, &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;Universal Product Code&amp;quot;&amp;gt;UPC&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s) MAY be represented as a &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;Uniform Resource Name&amp;quot;&amp;gt;URN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; (&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;) for the item.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; If you look at [http://www.isbn.org ISBN.org]'s website, they warn strongly against using &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s as unique IDs because often times, a book with the &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;same title&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; may have &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;different&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no encoding within the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. 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 &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;books&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; simply because each review is tied to a (possibly) different &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;. This makes it much more difficult to aggregate reviews for such items as books (ahem&amp;amp;mdash;or should I say, &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;titles&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; ;) ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; of a book as a way to identify the title to which the review refers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
** No follow-up comments have been left yet.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Template ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{issues-format}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Resolved Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
Issues that are resolved but may have outstanding [[to-do]] items.&lt;br /&gt;
* ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Closed Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
Resolved issues that have no further actions to take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== default lower bound ===&lt;br /&gt;
* YYYY-MM-DD????? raised by [[User:ScottReynen|Scott Reynen]]&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''Why is the default lower bound 1 when the [[reviews-formats|real world examples]] almost all have a lower bound of 0?''&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED INVALID ASSUMPTION.  Most [[review-examples|real-world examples]] have a lower bound of 1, not 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== default range ===&lt;br /&gt;
* 2006-02-23 raised by Andy Mabbett&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''Not all marks give ratings &amp;quot;out of five&amp;quot;. The value should be a percentage. Zero should be allowed.''&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED IGNORES RESEARCH. Most [[review-examples|real-world examples]] have a range of 1.0-5.0 not a percentage. You may set the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; bound to 100 explicitly, and the &amp;quot;worst&amp;quot; bound to 0 explicitly per the spec if necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
*#* &amp;quot;most&amp;quot; != &amp;quot;all&amp;quot;; indeed, the page you cite has examples of &amp;quot;1-10&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;0-100%&amp;quot;. I never claimed that many examples use percentages, but I'm sure a mathematician would explain that values in the range &amp;quot;1-5&amp;quot; may be expressed as percentages.&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED RTFM. Most examples are what the defaults are based on. Please re-read both the spec and the previous resolution, 1-10 is allowed (you have to explicitly set &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; to 10), and so is 0-100 (you have to explicitly set &amp;quot;worst&amp;quot; to 0 and &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; to 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specification Clarifications ===&lt;br /&gt;
* 2006-02-01 raised by [http://tantek.com Tantek].&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''The spec needs to clarify that there is only one &amp;quot;item&amp;quot; per &amp;quot;hreview&amp;quot;.''&lt;br /&gt;
*#* ACCEPTED.  Resolved in hReview 0.3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Date and Time ===&lt;br /&gt;
* 2006-08-24 raised by [[User:Elias|Elias Sinderson]]&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''Issue 1: (This is copied from the hcalendar-issues page, as it applies to hreview as well.) Although ISO 8601 allows both basic (sans delimiters) and extended formats, the extended format (where hyphens and colons are explicitly added) is broadly preferred for the web. While RFC 2445 specifies that the basic form be used in in iCalendar date / time fields, the W3C has published a technical [http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime note] (submitted by Reuters), which recommends that the extended (delimited) format be used, and the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#h-6.11 HTML 4.0 spec] uses the extended format. Further, RFC 3339 defines a ISO 8601 profile for dates and time representations on the internet that future specs SHOULD use; recommending a fully delimited representation (see sec. 5.6). Lastly, it should be noted that the [http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#date xsd:date] and [http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime xsd:dateTime] types are specified as being the ISO 8601 extended format. So, given that hCalendar is based on iCalendar, it is understandable that it allows both formats, however this is clearly a case in which it would be very reasonable to require users to upconvert the format into the least ambiguous and most easily parsed / validated representation. Think of the children.&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED. INCORRECT METHODOLOGY. &amp;quot;Require users to upconvert&amp;quot;??  No.  We optimize for publishers (the &amp;quot;users&amp;quot; in this context) more than developers. Whenever you find yourself saying or even &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;thinking&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; &amp;quot;require users&amp;quot;, you're probably thinking along the wrong lines of reasoning.  In particular we have already made the decision/resolution to permit the broader range of datetime values permitted by RFC2445, and explicitly included some shortcuts (e.g. timezone offsets) specifically to make things &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;easier&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; for &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;users&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Related pages==&lt;br /&gt;
{{hreview-related-pages}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Codeguru413</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hlisting-feedback&amp;diff=42797</id>
		<title>hlisting-feedback</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hlisting-feedback&amp;diff=42797"/>
		<updated>2010-07-10T20:36:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Codeguru413: /* RE: Item Info */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;cnaroda&lt;br /&gt;
== Schema Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Item ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* is class=&amp;quot;item&amp;quot; a part of the spec? It is not clear from the highlight in the proposal.&lt;br /&gt;
* if it is, is it optional (as in the [[hlisting-proposal#Schema|schema]]) or required (as implied by the item [[hlisting-proposal#Item_Metadata|item metadata]] section). My feeling is that it should be required&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[DavidJanes]] 2006-11-18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Listing Action ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;listing action&amp;quot; is another one that confuses me, is that two words, one word &amp;quot;listing-action&amp;quot; or just a tag with some of the recommended values... it is required, but i don't see it in action on edgeio.com or Dealtagger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[BrianSuda]] 2006-11-18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Make Info/Photo fields Optional ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
WordPress has a great WYSIWYG editor that lets you drag &amp;amp; drop images. &lt;br /&gt;
But the only semantic identification it uses is the HTML &amp;lt;img&amp;gt; element. &lt;br /&gt;
So how do we get a photo to be identified from all the images inside the description?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Manually edit the HTML that WordPress creates to add the class.&lt;br /&gt;
2. Add another UI doubling the one already used by WordPress, sans drag &amp;amp; drop, strictly for images designated as photos.&lt;br /&gt;
3. Tag every single image as photo.&lt;br /&gt;
4. Have the crawler interpret every single image as photo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure we want to push the complexity to the edge, that's like asking people to create only valid XHTML pages and not rendering anything that refuses to validate. This is about humans first, machines second. If complexity needs to exist, it should be not in the blog, but in the crawlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Default Action ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think it's good form to have a default for every required field, since someone out there is going to drop any given requried field in the land of microformats. In that spirit, the default for listing type is offer, since wanted ads are &amp;lt;&amp;lt; 10% in the real world. What I don't know is what the default action should be; the most neutral of them is ''announce'', which I am using in my parser.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Rohit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Donations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sell and Rent are obvious enough verbs; what does Trade mean, though? Barter? And what about one-sided gifts, like donations or &amp;quot;free to recycle&amp;quot;? Should we replace Trade and offer Donate in its place?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Rohit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Desire to Inherit Context ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to blog posting, Iâd like to see us address the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. '''Less is more'''. Or in reverse, people are lazy, and the less fields they need to fill in order to sell a couch or find a date, the more they'll use the plugin. So I'm trying to visualize how this plays in with the user interface and how we can keep it as simple as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. '''DRY'''. We want to capture as much information as possible from what is already available in the blog post. We already have summary (title), listing date/time (post date/time), permalink, author information, tags/categories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. '''Keep it simple'''. And here I'm talking about setup and being able to extend your blog's functionality without too much fuss. This one is a bit more tricky, so I'll go into details.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
WordPress uses templates to render the blog post. The template then calls the WordPress API to render the title, a second call to render the content, and another call to render any additional metadata (e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
publish date, categories, author). These separate calls allow people to play with the formatting and apply any styling they like.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way uPress works, is by processing the blog post before it goes back to the filter, creating the hEvent (to be: hListing) element around it, and adding any relevant fields into the blog post. So what you fill in the form, finds its way to the post content. As a result, setting up the plugin requires two steps: drop it to the plugins directory, and activate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I only get to process the content of the post. I can't easily include the title inside the hListing element, or any other metadata about the post, even though I have access to it. If I duplicate that information, the post stops being readable. And to wrap the entire post (not just body) inside a microformat element, I need to tweak the template. Except people use different templates, and I can't tweak all of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the more context we use, the better the plugin becomes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''On hReview''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This draft was heavily influenced by hReview. That's a good thing. We donât want to duplicate efforts; are learning from the mistakes of others; and converging on a cohesive set of specifications. I want to eventually add hReview and hCard to my plugin. So this strategy of borrowing from existing microformats helps me get it done quicker. It took me all of five minutes to leverage address formatting from hEvent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But we also need to recognize that hReview could also be more blogging friendly. The specification is great, but the implementations are lacking. I think the reason is that hReview was designed for greenfield applications that specifically deal with emitting reviews. The design did not take into consideration applications that already deal with content, but want to supplement it with reviews, listings, etc. There's no mention of such consideration in the spec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We want to appeal to the wide populace of bloggers who just want to get stuff done. Rather than put the burden on millions of bloggers out there, we should place the burden on the few companies developing crawlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would Tantek say? I think he'd ask us to focus on use cases, real examples. I'm presenting one such example. The use case involves a blogger who just wants to sell something on their blog, with the minimum amount of effort and cognitive friction. They want the listing to be discovered, aggregated and searched by others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''Neighborhood Name''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the exception of housing, most classified listings donât contain a specific address (e.g., if Iâm selling my couch, you donât need to know where I live in the listing).    Some location information, however, is important.  In most suburban areas, the name of the town is sufficient.  In cities, however, neighborhood is important and more contextually relevant than zipcode (simply a region defined by the post office).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a tough problem that needs to be solved but outside the context of this discussion.  We think there are other cases the could benefit from it, including hReview and hEvent.  We recommend that this debate be surface in the adr microformation discussion (e.g., perhaps extend the locality field (city) to optionally include a neighborhood)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Craig Donato &amp;amp; Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''Listing Action, Listing Type, Item Type''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We heavily debated how to classify a listing.  Search engines or marketplaces typically need to understand what type of listing it is (e.g., personal ad, house for sale, music) to effectively reference or index a listing.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We initially considered proposing a single category field that contained tags (in addition to the tags field).  Not only did this seem duplicative, it also seemed like too much of a good thing.  In a previous project, Assaf managed to successfully overload everything into tags (including dates and locations), and run time-based and location-based searches, and ended up concluding it's a bad idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We eventually decided to propose the use three parametric field that when used together could define any type of listing independent of the words use to describe.  These ended up being: listing-type (are you offering something or looking for something; listing-action (are you trying to sell, rent, or announce something); and item type (what item is referenced by the action such as a job opening, product, housing).  By making small modifications to this vocabulary, users can specify an extremely wide range of potential transactions.  This seemed more feasible given that the UI used to produce the hListing could abstract some of this from the user (as Assaf demonstrated in his demo plugin).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
!Desired Transaction&lt;br /&gt;
!Listing Type&lt;br /&gt;
!Listing Action&lt;br /&gt;
!Item Type&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Merchandise For Sale&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking to Buy Merchandise&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Selling Tickets&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Event&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apartment For Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for Apartment&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Room for Rent (Roommate)&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for a Date&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer||Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce, Meet&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Job Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for a Job (Resume)&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Music Lessons&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Service&lt;br /&gt;
|Business&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Trade Couch for TV&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Trade&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pet for Adoption&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Animal?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
-- Craig Donato&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vertical ==&lt;br /&gt;
Adding &amp;quot;vertical&amp;quot; to the schema would take this idea a lot further and would add enough flexibility to kill off the need for further formats like hJob etc.  Specific verticals could be set (jobs, real estate, rentals, auto, other) with additional fields added as subsets of each vertical. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* vertical: rentals&lt;br /&gt;
* listing type: offer&lt;br /&gt;
* item type: house (vs. appartment)&lt;br /&gt;
* listing action: rent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[User:AaronMentele|Aaron Mentele]] (2006-12-26)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliminate Item Type ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can we eliminate item type and simply use tags?  Or perhaps inferred item type from the item info?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== hClassified? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are meanings of &amp;quot;listing&amp;quot; that wouldn't fit this format.. might not hClassified be a more descriptive name? It's not overconstraining... 'classifieds' being very broad in practice and the meaning very informally/functionally defined. Or has the 'listing' train left the station? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What about retail? == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retail is out of scope for hListing, sure -- but what microformat should a retail seller of (e.g. mass-produced) goods use? hForSale? hProduct?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Retail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Funnily enough, hProduct is always something that I've thought about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be bold enough to say that it will be one of the main uses of microformats in the future. Imagine the amount of shops, price comparison, product review and many more type of sites. It doesn't have to be for profit, it could just be someones product, on their site, that they are displaying.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be willing to help and continue development of a spec for 'hProduct'.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adam Craven&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Thubnail Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
Hello. I'm not sure I understand everything correctly, but from reading the hListing proposal it seems that one should put pictures of the listed subject into the &amp;quot;photo&amp;quot; class. I'm wondering if also we may wish to have a &amp;quot;thumnail&amp;quot; class or perhaps something like &amp;quot;photo-thumbnail&amp;quot; to denote thumbnail images.&lt;br /&gt;
-Andrew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Validator ==&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps to foster development of this type, someone (who knows a lot more about microformats than I) should put a validator type page out there. I realize that microformats, by their nature are a loose specification (it's not as strict as validating say an XML rss feed). But having something that I can use to at least verify that what I'm coding is actually recognized as an hListing by someone other than myself would be very helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
-Andrew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraction of hProduct ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it would be wise to extract product information into [[hproduct|hProduct]] and simply maintain the listing for listing-specific data (such as actual price/suggested price, location, timeframe, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, regarding price, I think going with the currency microformat makes sense, but I also think there should be specifics around the type of price being shown. For instance, there is a MSRP which is tied to the product (and ''should'' be in hProduct), then there is the asking price (or in the case of cars, the dealer invoice, sticker price, etc.). Perhaps going the route of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;price actual money&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;abbr class=&amp;quot;currency&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;USD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;$&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;3.00&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
would make more sense?&lt;br /&gt;
- Aaron Gustafson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use for Microphilanthropy and Volunteer listings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adding 'Donate', as Rohit suggested, would open up hListing for use by microphilanthropy sites like www.Kiva.org or www.DonorsChoose.org (I work there.) See here for an example of one of our listings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.donorschoose.org/donors/proposal.html?id=64964&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So an organization seeking a donation would format it Listing Type: Wanted, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone looking to donate an old PC would format it Listing Type: Offer, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Product&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An organization trying to find a volunteer would have Listing Type: Wanted, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Service&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that some organizations (like Kiva) are doing microloans, instead of microphilanthropy. So in addition to Sell, Rent, Trade, Meet, Announce, and Donate, &amp;quot;Loan&amp;quot; would be useful as a Listing Action. (Could also be useful for facilitating borrowing relationships of items.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One other addition to hListing that might be useful in this context is Cost. In a commercial setting (say, you're trying to sell a used item on eBay), Cost would represent what you paid for the item. So Price - Cost would get you the markup (or markdown). In a philanthropic context, Cost would represent the cost to make a project happen. If the project were already partially funded, then Price &amp;lt; Cost, and Price / Cost would give you the % remaining to completely fund that project. (Many microphilanthropy sites bundle lots of donations to make up one project.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Mike Everett-Lane&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Job listings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discussion over on the [http://microformats.org/wiki/job-listing-brainstorming Job Listing microformat page] discusses the possibility of using the hlisting format instead of creating a new format. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While jobs can be described using Listing Type=&amp;quot;Offer&amp;quot;, Listing Action = &amp;quot;Announce&amp;quot; and Item Type =&amp;quot;Opening&amp;quot;. Additional mark ups are required to meet the basic job board usages. For example Australian job boards all have Industries, Salary ranges, types of jobs, and a URL for the application. Being able to incorporate these key elements into the hlisting spec would be great. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Michael Specht&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ongoing Rental Availability Calendar ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Renting is a very common activity addressed by this microformat, and it appears to deal with it very well. However, I was wondering what is the correct way of marking up a common web element: an availability calendar? Say we have the month of February 2010 available, then that's quite easy: a single hListing from start to end. Then if someone books the second week: do we then have 3 hListings (1st week as free, 2nd week as booked, 3rd-4th weeks joined as free)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All 3 must be marked up with dtlisted as the day that they were created, the free chunks will have dtexpired set to the day that they begin (or end if you're happy to rent after the chunk has begun), and the taken week will have dtexpired as the day it was booked. However that leaves no room for the actual date data of the dates available for rent - surely a very common way of renting things (cars, accommodation, private jets etc.). Should we be using an hEvent inside the hListing (or vice versa)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might make some sense to &amp;quot;chunk up&amp;quot; the dates that you will rent by, e.g. property is often rented on a whole weekly basis, and you could then have an hEvent for each &amp;quot;chunk&amp;quot;. However things like cars and private jets are often rented by the day or hour... making the hEvent &amp;quot;chunks&amp;quot; seem prohibitively numerous. It would seem like we need an extra &amp;quot;period&amp;quot; property for hListing Rentals (e.g. weekly for apartments, daily for cars) and then have the smallest number of hListing-hEvent combos required to describe the current availability. This would allow for hEvents to cover multiple &amp;quot;periods&amp;quot; available for rent (e.g. the 3rd and 4th weeks from my original February 2010 example combined) while still allowing consuming systems to show that you can rent one or more of these periods without having to book the entire time covered by the hEvent. Or is there a better way?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[MicroAngelo]] 2009-01-15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== RE: Item Info ==&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading the draft spec, I came across the following in the definition of the item info portion of [[hListing]]: &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Unique item IDs (e.g. ISBNs, UPCs) MAY be represented as a URN (&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;) for the item.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; If you look at [http://www.isbn.org ISBN.org]'s website, they warn strongly against using &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s as unique IDs because often times, a book with the &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;same title&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; may have &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;different&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no encoding within the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. I believe that this is not the only microformat that has this issue. Others may be [[hReview]] and [[hProduct]]. I understand that many listings defer the notion of a unique item identifier; I only wish to raise awareness of the fact that &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; numbers should not be used as a form of unique identification because there is not a 1:1 correspondence between a book title and an &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;. 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 &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;books&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;&amp;amp;mdash;or &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;products&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;, if you like&amp;amp;mdash;even though the books are all the &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;same&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; title, just having different &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. This makes it much more difficult to aggregate reviews for such items as books (ahem&amp;amp;mdash;or should I say, &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;titles&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; ;) ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[User:Codeguru413|Codeguru413]] &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;2010-07-05&amp;quot;&amp;gt;2010-07-05&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; used as a unique ID debate doesn't really apply to [[hListing]] or [[hProduct]] afterall&amp;amp;mdash;at least, not so far as the information pertaining to a book. The use of this microformat is for items for sale. Generally, you will sell a book, not a complete title! Therefore, the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; is appropriate for this type of microformat. However, reviews included with the [[hListing]] or [[hProduct]] for a book should avoid using the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; as an identifier per my original comments above. I think I will copy the main part of this comment on over to the appropriate [[hReview]] page where it is more applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[User:Codeguru413|Codeguru413]] &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;2010-07-10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;2010-07-10&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Codeguru413</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hreview-issues&amp;diff=42796</id>
		<title>hreview-issues</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hreview-issues&amp;diff=42796"/>
		<updated>2010-07-10T18:17:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Codeguru413: /* Item */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;h1&amp;gt; hReview issues &amp;lt;/h1&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are externally raised issues about [[hreview|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.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''IMPORTANT''': Please read the [[hreview-faq|hReview FAQ]] ''before'' giving any feedback or raising any issues as your feedback/issues may already be resolved/answered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. — [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See related [[hcalendar-issues]] and [[hcard-issues]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== dtreviewed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*{{OpenIssue}} 2010-04-09 raised by [[User:Aroot|Andy Root]]&lt;br /&gt;
*# My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;abbr&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; tag. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner. This would makes sense if the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;abbr&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; tag was intended for that use but it is being used in the opposite manner. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them. This is not a good user experience not to mention the issues around accessibility. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;I suggest using the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;ins&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ins class=&amp;quot;dtreviewed&amp;quot; datetime=&amp;quot;20050418&amp;quot;&amp;gt;April 18th, 2005&amp;lt;/ins&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== rel=&amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OpenIssue 2005-01-04 by [[User:DavidJanes|David Janes]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atom defines rel=&amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; [http://atompub.org/2005/07/11/draft-ietf-atompub-format-10.html#rfc.section.4.2.7 here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The value &amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies a resource equivalent to the containing element.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HTML rel=&amp;amp;quot;boomark&amp;amp;quot; [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since we're using &amp;amp;quot;bookmark&amp;amp;quot; to mean the entry point to the hReview, isn't the &amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; redundant or overly subtle?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multilinguism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*{{OpenIssue}} 2006-03-22 raised by Fil&lt;br /&gt;
*# the reviewer spec can't say ''For anonymous reviews, use &amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot; (without quotes) for the full name of the reviewer.'' as this word (&amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot;) is going to be apparent on the page, and is not multilingual (and even in English someone might want to use another word, like &amp;quot;an anonymous coward&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Price ===&lt;br /&gt;
* {{OpenIssue}} 2006-04-04 raised by [[User:Evan|Evan]].&lt;br /&gt;
*# It doesn't seem possible to give an approximate, average, or absolute '''price''' of the product or service in question. Examples: for a piece of software, the suggested retail price. For a restaurant, average price of an entree, ''or'' a '''price range'''. Prices should almost definitely have a ''currency'' marker and an ''amount''. Suggestion: ''&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;price&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;abbr class=&amp;quot;currency&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;Canadian dollars&amp;quot;&amp;gt;$&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;amount&amp;quot;&amp;gt;10.99&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;''. For a range, ''&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;pricerange&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;price&amp;quot;&amp;gt; ... &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;price&amp;quot;&amp;gt; ... &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;hentry&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Item ===&lt;br /&gt;
*{{OpenIssue}} &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;entry-summary author vcard&amp;quot;&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;published&amp;quot;&amp;gt;2010-07-10&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; raised by &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;fn&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Codeguru413|Codeguru413]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;entry-content discussion issues&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong class=&amp;quot;entry-title&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s should not be used as unique IDs for [[hReview]]s&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading the spec, I came across the following for the definition of the &amp;lt;b&amp;gt;item&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; portion of [[hReview]]: &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Non-&amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;Uniform Resource Locator&amp;quot;&amp;gt;URL&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; unique item IDs (e.g. &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s, &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;Universal Product Code&amp;quot;&amp;gt;UPC&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s) MAY be represented as a &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;Uniform Resource Name&amp;quot;&amp;gt;URN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; (&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;) for the item.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; If you look at [http://www.isbn.org ISBN.org]'s website, they warn strongly against using &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s as unique IDs because often times, a book with the &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;same title&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; may have &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;different&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no encoding within the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. 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 &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;books&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; simply because each review is tied to a (possibly) different &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;. This makes it much more difficult to aggregate reviews for such items as books (ahem&amp;amp;mdash;or should I say, &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;titles&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; ;) ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; of a book as a way to identify the title to which the review refers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
** No follow-up comments have been left yet.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Template ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{issues-format}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Resolved Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
Issues that are resolved but may have outstanding [[to-do]] items.&lt;br /&gt;
* ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Closed Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
Resolved issues that have no further actions to take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== default lower bound ===&lt;br /&gt;
* YYYY-MM-DD????? raised by [[User:ScottReynen|Scott Reynen]]&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''Why is the default lower bound 1 when the [[reviews-formats|real world examples]] almost all have a lower bound of 0?''&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED INVALID ASSUMPTION.  Most [[review-examples|real-world examples]] have a lower bound of 1, not 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== default range ===&lt;br /&gt;
* 2006-02-23 raised by Andy Mabbett&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''Not all marks give ratings &amp;quot;out of five&amp;quot;. The value should be a percentage. Zero should be allowed.''&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED IGNORES RESEARCH. Most [[review-examples|real-world examples]] have a range of 1.0-5.0 not a percentage. You may set the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; bound to 100 explicitly, and the &amp;quot;worst&amp;quot; bound to 0 explicitly per the spec if necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
*#* &amp;quot;most&amp;quot; != &amp;quot;all&amp;quot;; indeed, the page you cite has examples of &amp;quot;1-10&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;0-100%&amp;quot;. I never claimed that many examples use percentages, but I'm sure a mathematician would explain that values in the range &amp;quot;1-5&amp;quot; may be expressed as percentages.&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED RTFM. Most examples are what the defaults are based on. Please re-read both the spec and the previous resolution, 1-10 is allowed (you have to explicitly set &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; to 10), and so is 0-100 (you have to explicitly set &amp;quot;worst&amp;quot; to 0 and &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; to 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specification Clarifications ===&lt;br /&gt;
* 2006-02-01 raised by [http://tantek.com Tantek].&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''The spec needs to clarify that there is only one &amp;quot;item&amp;quot; per &amp;quot;hreview&amp;quot;.''&lt;br /&gt;
*#* ACCEPTED.  Resolved in hReview 0.3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Date and Time ===&lt;br /&gt;
* 2006-08-24 raised by [[User:Elias|Elias Sinderson]]&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''Issue 1: (This is copied from the hcalendar-issues page, as it applies to hreview as well.) Although ISO 8601 allows both basic (sans delimiters) and extended formats, the extended format (where hyphens and colons are explicitly added) is broadly preferred for the web. While RFC 2445 specifies that the basic form be used in in iCalendar date / time fields, the W3C has published a technical [http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime note] (submitted by Reuters), which recommends that the extended (delimited) format be used, and the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#h-6.11 HTML 4.0 spec] uses the extended format. Further, RFC 3339 defines a ISO 8601 profile for dates and time representations on the internet that future specs SHOULD use; recommending a fully delimited representation (see sec. 5.6). Lastly, it should be noted that the [http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#date xsd:date] and [http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime xsd:dateTime] types are specified as being the ISO 8601 extended format. So, given that hCalendar is based on iCalendar, it is understandable that it allows both formats, however this is clearly a case in which it would be very reasonable to require users to upconvert the format into the least ambiguous and most easily parsed / validated representation. Think of the children.&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED. INCORRECT METHODOLOGY. &amp;quot;Require users to upconvert&amp;quot;??  No.  We optimize for publishers (the &amp;quot;users&amp;quot; in this context) more than developers. Whenever you find yourself saying or even &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;thinking&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; &amp;quot;require users&amp;quot;, you're probably thinking along the wrong lines of reasoning.  In particular we have already made the decision/resolution to permit the broader range of datetime values permitted by RFC2445, and explicitly included some shortcuts (e.g. timezone offsets) specifically to make things &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;easier&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; for &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;users&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Related pages==&lt;br /&gt;
{{hreview-related-pages}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Codeguru413</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hreview-issues&amp;diff=42795</id>
		<title>hreview-issues</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hreview-issues&amp;diff=42795"/>
		<updated>2010-07-10T18:16:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Codeguru413: /* Item */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;h1&amp;gt; hReview issues &amp;lt;/h1&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are externally raised issues about [[hreview|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.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''IMPORTANT''': Please read the [[hreview-faq|hReview FAQ]] ''before'' giving any feedback or raising any issues as your feedback/issues may already be resolved/answered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. — [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See related [[hcalendar-issues]] and [[hcard-issues]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== dtreviewed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*{{OpenIssue}} 2010-04-09 raised by [[User:Aroot|Andy Root]]&lt;br /&gt;
*# My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;abbr&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; tag. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner. This would makes sense if the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;abbr&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; tag was intended for that use but it is being used in the opposite manner. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them. This is not a good user experience not to mention the issues around accessibility. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;I suggest using the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;ins&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ins class=&amp;quot;dtreviewed&amp;quot; datetime=&amp;quot;20050418&amp;quot;&amp;gt;April 18th, 2005&amp;lt;/ins&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== rel=&amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OpenIssue 2005-01-04 by [[User:DavidJanes|David Janes]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atom defines rel=&amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; [http://atompub.org/2005/07/11/draft-ietf-atompub-format-10.html#rfc.section.4.2.7 here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The value &amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies a resource equivalent to the containing element.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HTML rel=&amp;amp;quot;boomark&amp;amp;quot; [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since we're using &amp;amp;quot;bookmark&amp;amp;quot; to mean the entry point to the hReview, isn't the &amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; redundant or overly subtle?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multilinguism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*{{OpenIssue}} 2006-03-22 raised by Fil&lt;br /&gt;
*# the reviewer spec can't say ''For anonymous reviews, use &amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot; (without quotes) for the full name of the reviewer.'' as this word (&amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot;) is going to be apparent on the page, and is not multilingual (and even in English someone might want to use another word, like &amp;quot;an anonymous coward&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Price ===&lt;br /&gt;
* {{OpenIssue}} 2006-04-04 raised by [[User:Evan|Evan]].&lt;br /&gt;
*# It doesn't seem possible to give an approximate, average, or absolute '''price''' of the product or service in question. Examples: for a piece of software, the suggested retail price. For a restaurant, average price of an entree, ''or'' a '''price range'''. Prices should almost definitely have a ''currency'' marker and an ''amount''. Suggestion: ''&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;price&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;abbr class=&amp;quot;currency&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;Canadian dollars&amp;quot;&amp;gt;$&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;amount&amp;quot;&amp;gt;10.99&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;''. For a range, ''&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;pricerange&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;price&amp;quot;&amp;gt; ... &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;price&amp;quot;&amp;gt; ... &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;hentry&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Item ===&lt;br /&gt;
*{{OpenIssue}} &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;entry-summary author vcard&amp;quot;&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;published&amp;quot;&amp;gt;2010-07-10&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; raised by &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;fn&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Codeguru413|Codeguru413]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;entry-content discussion issues&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong class=&amp;quot;entry-title&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s should not be used as unique IDs for [hReview]s&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading the spec, I came across the following for the definition of the &amp;lt;b&amp;gt;item&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; portion of [[hReview]]: &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Non-&amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;Uniform Resource Locator&amp;quot;&amp;gt;URL&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; unique item IDs (e.g. &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s, &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;Universal Product Code&amp;quot;&amp;gt;UPC&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s) MAY be represented as a &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;Uniform Resource Name&amp;quot;&amp;gt;URN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; (&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;) for the item.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; If you look at [http://www.isbn.org ISBN.org]'s website, they warn strongly against using &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s as unique IDs because often times, a book with the &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;same title&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; may have &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;different&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no encoding within the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. 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 &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;books&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; simply because each review is tied to a (possibly) different &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;. This makes it much more difficult to aggregate reviews for such items as books (ahem&amp;amp;mdash;or should I say, &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;titles&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; ;) ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; of a book as a way to identify the title to which the review refers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
** No follow-up comments have been left yet.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Template ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{issues-format}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Resolved Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
Issues that are resolved but may have outstanding [[to-do]] items.&lt;br /&gt;
* ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Closed Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
Resolved issues that have no further actions to take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== default lower bound ===&lt;br /&gt;
* YYYY-MM-DD????? raised by [[User:ScottReynen|Scott Reynen]]&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''Why is the default lower bound 1 when the [[reviews-formats|real world examples]] almost all have a lower bound of 0?''&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED INVALID ASSUMPTION.  Most [[review-examples|real-world examples]] have a lower bound of 1, not 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== default range ===&lt;br /&gt;
* 2006-02-23 raised by Andy Mabbett&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''Not all marks give ratings &amp;quot;out of five&amp;quot;. The value should be a percentage. Zero should be allowed.''&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED IGNORES RESEARCH. Most [[review-examples|real-world examples]] have a range of 1.0-5.0 not a percentage. You may set the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; bound to 100 explicitly, and the &amp;quot;worst&amp;quot; bound to 0 explicitly per the spec if necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
*#* &amp;quot;most&amp;quot; != &amp;quot;all&amp;quot;; indeed, the page you cite has examples of &amp;quot;1-10&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;0-100%&amp;quot;. I never claimed that many examples use percentages, but I'm sure a mathematician would explain that values in the range &amp;quot;1-5&amp;quot; may be expressed as percentages.&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED RTFM. Most examples are what the defaults are based on. Please re-read both the spec and the previous resolution, 1-10 is allowed (you have to explicitly set &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; to 10), and so is 0-100 (you have to explicitly set &amp;quot;worst&amp;quot; to 0 and &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; to 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specification Clarifications ===&lt;br /&gt;
* 2006-02-01 raised by [http://tantek.com Tantek].&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''The spec needs to clarify that there is only one &amp;quot;item&amp;quot; per &amp;quot;hreview&amp;quot;.''&lt;br /&gt;
*#* ACCEPTED.  Resolved in hReview 0.3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Date and Time ===&lt;br /&gt;
* 2006-08-24 raised by [[User:Elias|Elias Sinderson]]&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''Issue 1: (This is copied from the hcalendar-issues page, as it applies to hreview as well.) Although ISO 8601 allows both basic (sans delimiters) and extended formats, the extended format (where hyphens and colons are explicitly added) is broadly preferred for the web. While RFC 2445 specifies that the basic form be used in in iCalendar date / time fields, the W3C has published a technical [http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime note] (submitted by Reuters), which recommends that the extended (delimited) format be used, and the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#h-6.11 HTML 4.0 spec] uses the extended format. Further, RFC 3339 defines a ISO 8601 profile for dates and time representations on the internet that future specs SHOULD use; recommending a fully delimited representation (see sec. 5.6). Lastly, it should be noted that the [http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#date xsd:date] and [http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime xsd:dateTime] types are specified as being the ISO 8601 extended format. So, given that hCalendar is based on iCalendar, it is understandable that it allows both formats, however this is clearly a case in which it would be very reasonable to require users to upconvert the format into the least ambiguous and most easily parsed / validated representation. Think of the children.&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED. INCORRECT METHODOLOGY. &amp;quot;Require users to upconvert&amp;quot;??  No.  We optimize for publishers (the &amp;quot;users&amp;quot; in this context) more than developers. Whenever you find yourself saying or even &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;thinking&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; &amp;quot;require users&amp;quot;, you're probably thinking along the wrong lines of reasoning.  In particular we have already made the decision/resolution to permit the broader range of datetime values permitted by RFC2445, and explicitly included some shortcuts (e.g. timezone offsets) specifically to make things &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;easier&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; for &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;users&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Related pages==&lt;br /&gt;
{{hreview-related-pages}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Codeguru413</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hreview-issues&amp;diff=42794</id>
		<title>hreview-issues</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hreview-issues&amp;diff=42794"/>
		<updated>2010-07-10T18:16:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Codeguru413: Added issue for item info&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;h1&amp;gt; hReview issues &amp;lt;/h1&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These are externally raised issues about [[hreview|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.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''IMPORTANT''': Please read the [[hreview-faq|hReview FAQ]] ''before'' giving any feedback or raising any issues as your feedback/issues may already be resolved/answered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. — [http://tantek.com/ Tantek]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See related [[hcalendar-issues]] and [[hcard-issues]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== dtreviewed ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*{{OpenIssue}} 2010-04-09 raised by [[User:Aroot|Andy Root]]&lt;br /&gt;
*# My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;abbr&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; tag. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner. This would makes sense if the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;abbr&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; tag was intended for that use but it is being used in the opposite manner. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them. This is not a good user experience not to mention the issues around accessibility. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;I suggest using the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;ins&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ins class=&amp;quot;dtreviewed&amp;quot; datetime=&amp;quot;20050418&amp;quot;&amp;gt;April 18th, 2005&amp;lt;/ins&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== rel=&amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OpenIssue 2005-01-04 by [[User:DavidJanes|David Janes]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atom defines rel=&amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; [http://atompub.org/2005/07/11/draft-ietf-atompub-format-10.html#rfc.section.4.2.7 here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The value &amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; signifies that the IRI in the value of the href attribute identifies a resource equivalent to the containing element.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
HTML rel=&amp;amp;quot;boomark&amp;amp;quot; [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links here]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since we're using &amp;amp;quot;bookmark&amp;amp;quot; to mean the entry point to the hReview, isn't the &amp;amp;quot;self&amp;amp;quot; redundant or overly subtle?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Multilinguism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*{{OpenIssue}} 2006-03-22 raised by Fil&lt;br /&gt;
*# the reviewer spec can't say ''For anonymous reviews, use &amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot; (without quotes) for the full name of the reviewer.'' as this word (&amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot;) is going to be apparent on the page, and is not multilingual (and even in English someone might want to use another word, like &amp;quot;an anonymous coward&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Price ===&lt;br /&gt;
* {{OpenIssue}} 2006-04-04 raised by [[User:Evan|Evan]].&lt;br /&gt;
*# It doesn't seem possible to give an approximate, average, or absolute '''price''' of the product or service in question. Examples: for a piece of software, the suggested retail price. For a restaurant, average price of an entree, ''or'' a '''price range'''. Prices should almost definitely have a ''currency'' marker and an ''amount''. Suggestion: ''&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;price&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;abbr class=&amp;quot;currency&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;Canadian dollars&amp;quot;&amp;gt;$&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;amount&amp;quot;&amp;gt;10.99&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;''. For a range, ''&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;pricerange&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;price&amp;quot;&amp;gt; ... &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;price&amp;quot;&amp;gt; ... &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;hentry&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Item ===&lt;br /&gt;
*{{OpenIssue}} &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;entry-summary author vcard&amp;quot;&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;published&amp;quot;&amp;gt;2010-MM-DD&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; raised by &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;fn&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Codeguru413|Codeguru413]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;entry-content discussion issues&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong class=&amp;quot;entry-title&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s should not be used as unique IDs for [hReview]s&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading the spec, I came across the following for the definition of the &amp;lt;b&amp;gt;item&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; portion of [[hReview]]: &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Non-&amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;Uniform Resource Locator&amp;quot;&amp;gt;URL&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; unique item IDs (e.g. &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s, &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;Universal Product Code&amp;quot;&amp;gt;UPC&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s) MAY be represented as a &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;Uniform Resource Name&amp;quot;&amp;gt;URN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; (&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;) for the item.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; If you look at [http://www.isbn.org ISBN.org]'s website, they warn strongly against using &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s as unique IDs because often times, a book with the &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;same title&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; may have &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;different&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no encoding within the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. 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 &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;books&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; simply because each review is tied to a (possibly) different &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;. This makes it much more difficult to aggregate reviews for such items as books (ahem&amp;amp;mdash;or should I say, &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;titles&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; ;) ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; of a book as a way to identify the title to which the review refers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
** No follow-up comments have been left yet.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Template ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{issues-format}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Resolved Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
Issues that are resolved but may have outstanding [[to-do]] items.&lt;br /&gt;
* ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Closed Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
Resolved issues that have no further actions to take.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== default lower bound ===&lt;br /&gt;
* YYYY-MM-DD????? raised by [[User:ScottReynen|Scott Reynen]]&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''Why is the default lower bound 1 when the [[reviews-formats|real world examples]] almost all have a lower bound of 0?''&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED INVALID ASSUMPTION.  Most [[review-examples|real-world examples]] have a lower bound of 1, not 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== default range ===&lt;br /&gt;
* 2006-02-23 raised by Andy Mabbett&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''Not all marks give ratings &amp;quot;out of five&amp;quot;. The value should be a percentage. Zero should be allowed.''&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED IGNORES RESEARCH. Most [[review-examples|real-world examples]] have a range of 1.0-5.0 not a percentage. You may set the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; bound to 100 explicitly, and the &amp;quot;worst&amp;quot; bound to 0 explicitly per the spec if necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
*#* &amp;quot;most&amp;quot; != &amp;quot;all&amp;quot;; indeed, the page you cite has examples of &amp;quot;1-10&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;0-100%&amp;quot;. I never claimed that many examples use percentages, but I'm sure a mathematician would explain that values in the range &amp;quot;1-5&amp;quot; may be expressed as percentages.&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED RTFM. Most examples are what the defaults are based on. Please re-read both the spec and the previous resolution, 1-10 is allowed (you have to explicitly set &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; to 10), and so is 0-100 (you have to explicitly set &amp;quot;worst&amp;quot; to 0 and &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; to 100).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Specification Clarifications ===&lt;br /&gt;
* 2006-02-01 raised by [http://tantek.com Tantek].&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''The spec needs to clarify that there is only one &amp;quot;item&amp;quot; per &amp;quot;hreview&amp;quot;.''&lt;br /&gt;
*#* ACCEPTED.  Resolved in hReview 0.3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Date and Time ===&lt;br /&gt;
* 2006-08-24 raised by [[User:Elias|Elias Sinderson]]&lt;br /&gt;
*# ''Issue 1: (This is copied from the hcalendar-issues page, as it applies to hreview as well.) Although ISO 8601 allows both basic (sans delimiters) and extended formats, the extended format (where hyphens and colons are explicitly added) is broadly preferred for the web. While RFC 2445 specifies that the basic form be used in in iCalendar date / time fields, the W3C has published a technical [http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime note] (submitted by Reuters), which recommends that the extended (delimited) format be used, and the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#h-6.11 HTML 4.0 spec] uses the extended format. Further, RFC 3339 defines a ISO 8601 profile for dates and time representations on the internet that future specs SHOULD use; recommending a fully delimited representation (see sec. 5.6). Lastly, it should be noted that the [http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#date xsd:date] and [http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime xsd:dateTime] types are specified as being the ISO 8601 extended format. So, given that hCalendar is based on iCalendar, it is understandable that it allows both formats, however this is clearly a case in which it would be very reasonable to require users to upconvert the format into the least ambiguous and most easily parsed / validated representation. Think of the children.&lt;br /&gt;
*#* REJECTED. INCORRECT METHODOLOGY. &amp;quot;Require users to upconvert&amp;quot;??  No.  We optimize for publishers (the &amp;quot;users&amp;quot; in this context) more than developers. Whenever you find yourself saying or even &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;thinking&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; &amp;quot;require users&amp;quot;, you're probably thinking along the wrong lines of reasoning.  In particular we have already made the decision/resolution to permit the broader range of datetime values permitted by RFC2445, and explicitly included some shortcuts (e.g. timezone offsets) specifically to make things &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;easier&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; for &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;users&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Related pages==&lt;br /&gt;
{{hreview-related-pages}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Codeguru413</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Codeguru413&amp;diff=42793</id>
		<title>User:Codeguru413</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Codeguru413&amp;diff=42793"/>
		<updated>2010-07-10T17:21:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Codeguru413: /* A Little About Me */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;vcard&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;fn&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Craig S.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contacting Me ==&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://discoveringcode.blogspot.com My Blog]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
** Please be aware that I hardly ever have time to write there. However, I do plan on proposing a few new microformats (but only one to start), and my blog will be my primary testing ground/example/pre-pre-draft spec for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Little About Me ==&lt;br /&gt;
* I'm a Senior at &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;vcard&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;fn org url&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.kutztown.edu Kutztown University]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; completing my degree in Computer Science: Software Engineering with a minor in Mathematics.&lt;br /&gt;
* I love the idea about the semantic web and was excited to learn about microformats only last year (I did not learn about these through school, however). I can't wait to contribute to the community and to use them in sites I work on or develop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microformats I'm Working On ==&lt;br /&gt;
* None yet, but stay tuned, I'll be starting &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;the [[process]]&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; soon enough for my first microformat proposal.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Codeguru413</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Codeguru413&amp;diff=42792</id>
		<title>User:Codeguru413</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Codeguru413&amp;diff=42792"/>
		<updated>2010-07-10T17:20:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Codeguru413: Creation of my user page and basic information about me.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;vcard&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
= &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;fn&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Craig S.&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contacting Me ==&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://discoveringcode.blogspot.com My Blog]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
** Please be aware that I hardly ever have time to write there. However, I do plan on proposing a few new microformats (but only one to start), and my blog will be my primary testing ground/example/pre-pre-draft spec for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Little About Me ==&lt;br /&gt;
* I'm a Senior at &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;vcard&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;org url&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.kutztown.edu Kutztown University]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; completing my degree in Computer Science: Software Engineering with a minor in Mathematics.&lt;br /&gt;
* I love the idea about the semantic web and was excited to learn about microformats only last year (I did not learn about these through school, however). I can't wait to contribute to the community and to use them in sites I work on or develop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microformats I'm Working On ==&lt;br /&gt;
* None yet, but stay tuned, I'll be starting &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;the [[process]]&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; soon enough for my first microformat proposal.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Codeguru413</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hlisting-feedback&amp;diff=42791</id>
		<title>hlisting-feedback</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hlisting-feedback&amp;diff=42791"/>
		<updated>2010-07-10T17:05:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Codeguru413: /* RE: Item Info */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;cnaroda&lt;br /&gt;
== Schema Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Item ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* is class=&amp;quot;item&amp;quot; a part of the spec? It is not clear from the highlight in the proposal.&lt;br /&gt;
* if it is, is it optional (as in the [[hlisting-proposal#Schema|schema]]) or required (as implied by the item [[hlisting-proposal#Item_Metadata|item metadata]] section). My feeling is that it should be required&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[DavidJanes]] 2006-11-18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Listing Action ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;listing action&amp;quot; is another one that confuses me, is that two words, one word &amp;quot;listing-action&amp;quot; or just a tag with some of the recommended values... it is required, but i don't see it in action on edgeio.com or Dealtagger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[BrianSuda]] 2006-11-18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Make Info/Photo fields Optional ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
WordPress has a great WYSIWYG editor that lets you drag &amp;amp; drop images. &lt;br /&gt;
But the only semantic identification it uses is the HTML &amp;lt;img&amp;gt; element. &lt;br /&gt;
So how do we get a photo to be identified from all the images inside the description?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Manually edit the HTML that WordPress creates to add the class.&lt;br /&gt;
2. Add another UI doubling the one already used by WordPress, sans drag &amp;amp; drop, strictly for images designated as photos.&lt;br /&gt;
3. Tag every single image as photo.&lt;br /&gt;
4. Have the crawler interpret every single image as photo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure we want to push the complexity to the edge, that's like asking people to create only valid XHTML pages and not rendering anything that refuses to validate. This is about humans first, machines second. If complexity needs to exist, it should be not in the blog, but in the crawlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Default Action ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think it's good form to have a default for every required field, since someone out there is going to drop any given requried field in the land of microformats. In that spirit, the default for listing type is offer, since wanted ads are &amp;lt;&amp;lt; 10% in the real world. What I don't know is what the default action should be; the most neutral of them is ''announce'', which I am using in my parser.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Rohit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Donations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sell and Rent are obvious enough verbs; what does Trade mean, though? Barter? And what about one-sided gifts, like donations or &amp;quot;free to recycle&amp;quot;? Should we replace Trade and offer Donate in its place?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Rohit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Desire to Inherit Context ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to blog posting, Iâd like to see us address the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. '''Less is more'''. Or in reverse, people are lazy, and the less fields they need to fill in order to sell a couch or find a date, the more they'll use the plugin. So I'm trying to visualize how this plays in with the user interface and how we can keep it as simple as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. '''DRY'''. We want to capture as much information as possible from what is already available in the blog post. We already have summary (title), listing date/time (post date/time), permalink, author information, tags/categories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. '''Keep it simple'''. And here I'm talking about setup and being able to extend your blog's functionality without too much fuss. This one is a bit more tricky, so I'll go into details.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
WordPress uses templates to render the blog post. The template then calls the WordPress API to render the title, a second call to render the content, and another call to render any additional metadata (e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
publish date, categories, author). These separate calls allow people to play with the formatting and apply any styling they like.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way uPress works, is by processing the blog post before it goes back to the filter, creating the hEvent (to be: hListing) element around it, and adding any relevant fields into the blog post. So what you fill in the form, finds its way to the post content. As a result, setting up the plugin requires two steps: drop it to the plugins directory, and activate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I only get to process the content of the post. I can't easily include the title inside the hListing element, or any other metadata about the post, even though I have access to it. If I duplicate that information, the post stops being readable. And to wrap the entire post (not just body) inside a microformat element, I need to tweak the template. Except people use different templates, and I can't tweak all of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the more context we use, the better the plugin becomes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''On hReview''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This draft was heavily influenced by hReview. That's a good thing. We donât want to duplicate efforts; are learning from the mistakes of others; and converging on a cohesive set of specifications. I want to eventually add hReview and hCard to my plugin. So this strategy of borrowing from existing microformats helps me get it done quicker. It took me all of five minutes to leverage address formatting from hEvent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But we also need to recognize that hReview could also be more blogging friendly. The specification is great, but the implementations are lacking. I think the reason is that hReview was designed for greenfield applications that specifically deal with emitting reviews. The design did not take into consideration applications that already deal with content, but want to supplement it with reviews, listings, etc. There's no mention of such consideration in the spec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We want to appeal to the wide populace of bloggers who just want to get stuff done. Rather than put the burden on millions of bloggers out there, we should place the burden on the few companies developing crawlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would Tantek say? I think he'd ask us to focus on use cases, real examples. I'm presenting one such example. The use case involves a blogger who just wants to sell something on their blog, with the minimum amount of effort and cognitive friction. They want the listing to be discovered, aggregated and searched by others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''Neighborhood Name''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the exception of housing, most classified listings donât contain a specific address (e.g., if Iâm selling my couch, you donât need to know where I live in the listing).    Some location information, however, is important.  In most suburban areas, the name of the town is sufficient.  In cities, however, neighborhood is important and more contextually relevant than zipcode (simply a region defined by the post office).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a tough problem that needs to be solved but outside the context of this discussion.  We think there are other cases the could benefit from it, including hReview and hEvent.  We recommend that this debate be surface in the adr microformation discussion (e.g., perhaps extend the locality field (city) to optionally include a neighborhood)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Craig Donato &amp;amp; Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''Listing Action, Listing Type, Item Type''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We heavily debated how to classify a listing.  Search engines or marketplaces typically need to understand what type of listing it is (e.g., personal ad, house for sale, music) to effectively reference or index a listing.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We initially considered proposing a single category field that contained tags (in addition to the tags field).  Not only did this seem duplicative, it also seemed like too much of a good thing.  In a previous project, Assaf managed to successfully overload everything into tags (including dates and locations), and run time-based and location-based searches, and ended up concluding it's a bad idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We eventually decided to propose the use three parametric field that when used together could define any type of listing independent of the words use to describe.  These ended up being: listing-type (are you offering something or looking for something; listing-action (are you trying to sell, rent, or announce something); and item type (what item is referenced by the action such as a job opening, product, housing).  By making small modifications to this vocabulary, users can specify an extremely wide range of potential transactions.  This seemed more feasible given that the UI used to produce the hListing could abstract some of this from the user (as Assaf demonstrated in his demo plugin).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
!Desired Transaction&lt;br /&gt;
!Listing Type&lt;br /&gt;
!Listing Action&lt;br /&gt;
!Item Type&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Merchandise For Sale&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking to Buy Merchandise&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Selling Tickets&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Event&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apartment For Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for Apartment&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Room for Rent (Roommate)&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for a Date&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer||Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce, Meet&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Job Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for a Job (Resume)&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Music Lessons&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Service&lt;br /&gt;
|Business&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Trade Couch for TV&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Trade&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pet for Adoption&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Animal?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
-- Craig Donato&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vertical ==&lt;br /&gt;
Adding &amp;quot;vertical&amp;quot; to the schema would take this idea a lot further and would add enough flexibility to kill off the need for further formats like hJob etc.  Specific verticals could be set (jobs, real estate, rentals, auto, other) with additional fields added as subsets of each vertical. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* vertical: rentals&lt;br /&gt;
* listing type: offer&lt;br /&gt;
* item type: house (vs. appartment)&lt;br /&gt;
* listing action: rent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[User:AaronMentele|Aaron Mentele]] (2006-12-26)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliminate Item Type ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can we eliminate item type and simply use tags?  Or perhaps inferred item type from the item info?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== hClassified? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are meanings of &amp;quot;listing&amp;quot; that wouldn't fit this format.. might not hClassified be a more descriptive name? It's not overconstraining... 'classifieds' being very broad in practice and the meaning very informally/functionally defined. Or has the 'listing' train left the station? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What about retail? == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retail is out of scope for hListing, sure -- but what microformat should a retail seller of (e.g. mass-produced) goods use? hForSale? hProduct?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Retail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Funnily enough, hProduct is always something that I've thought about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be bold enough to say that it will be one of the main uses of microformats in the future. Imagine the amount of shops, price comparison, product review and many more type of sites. It doesn't have to be for profit, it could just be someones product, on their site, that they are displaying.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be willing to help and continue development of a spec for 'hProduct'.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adam Craven&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Thubnail Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
Hello. I'm not sure I understand everything correctly, but from reading the hListing proposal it seems that one should put pictures of the listed subject into the &amp;quot;photo&amp;quot; class. I'm wondering if also we may wish to have a &amp;quot;thumnail&amp;quot; class or perhaps something like &amp;quot;photo-thumbnail&amp;quot; to denote thumbnail images.&lt;br /&gt;
-Andrew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Validator ==&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps to foster development of this type, someone (who knows a lot more about microformats than I) should put a validator type page out there. I realize that microformats, by their nature are a loose specification (it's not as strict as validating say an XML rss feed). But having something that I can use to at least verify that what I'm coding is actually recognized as an hListing by someone other than myself would be very helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
-Andrew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraction of hProduct ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it would be wise to extract product information into [[hproduct|hProduct]] and simply maintain the listing for listing-specific data (such as actual price/suggested price, location, timeframe, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, regarding price, I think going with the currency microformat makes sense, but I also think there should be specifics around the type of price being shown. For instance, there is a MSRP which is tied to the product (and ''should'' be in hProduct), then there is the asking price (or in the case of cars, the dealer invoice, sticker price, etc.). Perhaps going the route of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;price actual money&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;abbr class=&amp;quot;currency&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;USD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;$&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;3.00&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
would make more sense?&lt;br /&gt;
- Aaron Gustafson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use for Microphilanthropy and Volunteer listings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adding 'Donate', as Rohit suggested, would open up hListing for use by microphilanthropy sites like www.Kiva.org or www.DonorsChoose.org (I work there.) See here for an example of one of our listings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.donorschoose.org/donors/proposal.html?id=64964&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So an organization seeking a donation would format it Listing Type: Wanted, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone looking to donate an old PC would format it Listing Type: Offer, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Product&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An organization trying to find a volunteer would have Listing Type: Wanted, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Service&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that some organizations (like Kiva) are doing microloans, instead of microphilanthropy. So in addition to Sell, Rent, Trade, Meet, Announce, and Donate, &amp;quot;Loan&amp;quot; would be useful as a Listing Action. (Could also be useful for facilitating borrowing relationships of items.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One other addition to hListing that might be useful in this context is Cost. In a commercial setting (say, you're trying to sell a used item on eBay), Cost would represent what you paid for the item. So Price - Cost would get you the markup (or markdown). In a philanthropic context, Cost would represent the cost to make a project happen. If the project were already partially funded, then Price &amp;lt; Cost, and Price / Cost would give you the % remaining to completely fund that project. (Many microphilanthropy sites bundle lots of donations to make up one project.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Mike Everett-Lane&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Job listings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discussion over on the [http://microformats.org/wiki/job-listing-brainstorming Job Listing microformat page] discusses the possibility of using the hlisting format instead of creating a new format. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While jobs can be described using Listing Type=&amp;quot;Offer&amp;quot;, Listing Action = &amp;quot;Announce&amp;quot; and Item Type =&amp;quot;Opening&amp;quot;. Additional mark ups are required to meet the basic job board usages. For example Australian job boards all have Industries, Salary ranges, types of jobs, and a URL for the application. Being able to incorporate these key elements into the hlisting spec would be great. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Michael Specht&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ongoing Rental Availability Calendar ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Renting is a very common activity addressed by this microformat, and it appears to deal with it very well. However, I was wondering what is the correct way of marking up a common web element: an availability calendar? Say we have the month of February 2010 available, then that's quite easy: a single hListing from start to end. Then if someone books the second week: do we then have 3 hListings (1st week as free, 2nd week as booked, 3rd-4th weeks joined as free)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All 3 must be marked up with dtlisted as the day that they were created, the free chunks will have dtexpired set to the day that they begin (or end if you're happy to rent after the chunk has begun), and the taken week will have dtexpired as the day it was booked. However that leaves no room for the actual date data of the dates available for rent - surely a very common way of renting things (cars, accommodation, private jets etc.). Should we be using an hEvent inside the hListing (or vice versa)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might make some sense to &amp;quot;chunk up&amp;quot; the dates that you will rent by, e.g. property is often rented on a whole weekly basis, and you could then have an hEvent for each &amp;quot;chunk&amp;quot;. However things like cars and private jets are often rented by the day or hour... making the hEvent &amp;quot;chunks&amp;quot; seem prohibitively numerous. It would seem like we need an extra &amp;quot;period&amp;quot; property for hListing Rentals (e.g. weekly for apartments, daily for cars) and then have the smallest number of hListing-hEvent combos required to describe the current availability. This would allow for hEvents to cover multiple &amp;quot;periods&amp;quot; available for rent (e.g. the 3rd and 4th weeks from my original February 2010 example combined) while still allowing consuming systems to show that you can rent one or more of these periods without having to book the entire time covered by the hEvent. Or is there a better way?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[MicroAngelo]] 2009-01-15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== RE: Item Info ==&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading the draft spec, I came across the following in the definition of the item info portion of [[hListing]]: &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Unique item IDs (e.g. ISBNs, UPCs) MAY be represented as a URN (&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;) for the item.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; If you look at [http://www.isbn.org ISBN.org]'s website, they warn strongly against using &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s as unique IDs because often times, a book with the &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;same title&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; may have &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;different&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no encoding within the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. I believe that this is not the only microformat that has this issue. Others may be [[hReview]] and [[hProduct]]. I understand that many listings defer the notion of a unique item identifier; I only wish to raise awareness of the fact that &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; numbers should not be used as a form of unique identification because there is not a 1:1 correspondence between a book title and an &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;. 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 &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;books&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;&amp;amp;mdash;or &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;products&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;, if you like&amp;amp;mdash;even though the books are all the &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;same&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; title, just having different &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. This makes it much more difficult to aggregate reviews for such items as books (ahem&amp;amp;mdash;or should I say, &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;titles&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; ;) ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[User:Codeguru413|Codeguru413]] 2010-07-05&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; used as a unique ID debate doesn't really apply to [[hListing]] or [[hProduct]] afterall&amp;amp;mdash;at least, not so far as the information pertaining to a book. The use of this microformat is for items for sale. Generally, you will sell a book, not a complete title! Therefore, the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; is appropriate for this type of microformat. However, reviews included with the [[hListing]] or [[hProduct]] for a book should avoid using the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; as an identifier per my original comments above. I think I will copy the main part of this comment on over to the appropriate [[hReview]] page where it is more applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[User:Codeguru413|Codeguru413]] 2010-07-10&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Codeguru413</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hlisting-feedback&amp;diff=42790</id>
		<title>hlisting-feedback</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hlisting-feedback&amp;diff=42790"/>
		<updated>2010-07-10T17:03:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Codeguru413: /* RE: Item Info */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;cnaroda&lt;br /&gt;
== Schema Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Item ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* is class=&amp;quot;item&amp;quot; a part of the spec? It is not clear from the highlight in the proposal.&lt;br /&gt;
* if it is, is it optional (as in the [[hlisting-proposal#Schema|schema]]) or required (as implied by the item [[hlisting-proposal#Item_Metadata|item metadata]] section). My feeling is that it should be required&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[DavidJanes]] 2006-11-18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Listing Action ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;listing action&amp;quot; is another one that confuses me, is that two words, one word &amp;quot;listing-action&amp;quot; or just a tag with some of the recommended values... it is required, but i don't see it in action on edgeio.com or Dealtagger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[BrianSuda]] 2006-11-18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Make Info/Photo fields Optional ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
WordPress has a great WYSIWYG editor that lets you drag &amp;amp; drop images. &lt;br /&gt;
But the only semantic identification it uses is the HTML &amp;lt;img&amp;gt; element. &lt;br /&gt;
So how do we get a photo to be identified from all the images inside the description?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Manually edit the HTML that WordPress creates to add the class.&lt;br /&gt;
2. Add another UI doubling the one already used by WordPress, sans drag &amp;amp; drop, strictly for images designated as photos.&lt;br /&gt;
3. Tag every single image as photo.&lt;br /&gt;
4. Have the crawler interpret every single image as photo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure we want to push the complexity to the edge, that's like asking people to create only valid XHTML pages and not rendering anything that refuses to validate. This is about humans first, machines second. If complexity needs to exist, it should be not in the blog, but in the crawlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Default Action ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think it's good form to have a default for every required field, since someone out there is going to drop any given requried field in the land of microformats. In that spirit, the default for listing type is offer, since wanted ads are &amp;lt;&amp;lt; 10% in the real world. What I don't know is what the default action should be; the most neutral of them is ''announce'', which I am using in my parser.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Rohit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Donations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sell and Rent are obvious enough verbs; what does Trade mean, though? Barter? And what about one-sided gifts, like donations or &amp;quot;free to recycle&amp;quot;? Should we replace Trade and offer Donate in its place?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Rohit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Desire to Inherit Context ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to blog posting, Iâd like to see us address the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. '''Less is more'''. Or in reverse, people are lazy, and the less fields they need to fill in order to sell a couch or find a date, the more they'll use the plugin. So I'm trying to visualize how this plays in with the user interface and how we can keep it as simple as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. '''DRY'''. We want to capture as much information as possible from what is already available in the blog post. We already have summary (title), listing date/time (post date/time), permalink, author information, tags/categories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. '''Keep it simple'''. And here I'm talking about setup and being able to extend your blog's functionality without too much fuss. This one is a bit more tricky, so I'll go into details.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
WordPress uses templates to render the blog post. The template then calls the WordPress API to render the title, a second call to render the content, and another call to render any additional metadata (e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
publish date, categories, author). These separate calls allow people to play with the formatting and apply any styling they like.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way uPress works, is by processing the blog post before it goes back to the filter, creating the hEvent (to be: hListing) element around it, and adding any relevant fields into the blog post. So what you fill in the form, finds its way to the post content. As a result, setting up the plugin requires two steps: drop it to the plugins directory, and activate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I only get to process the content of the post. I can't easily include the title inside the hListing element, or any other metadata about the post, even though I have access to it. If I duplicate that information, the post stops being readable. And to wrap the entire post (not just body) inside a microformat element, I need to tweak the template. Except people use different templates, and I can't tweak all of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the more context we use, the better the plugin becomes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''On hReview''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This draft was heavily influenced by hReview. That's a good thing. We donât want to duplicate efforts; are learning from the mistakes of others; and converging on a cohesive set of specifications. I want to eventually add hReview and hCard to my plugin. So this strategy of borrowing from existing microformats helps me get it done quicker. It took me all of five minutes to leverage address formatting from hEvent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But we also need to recognize that hReview could also be more blogging friendly. The specification is great, but the implementations are lacking. I think the reason is that hReview was designed for greenfield applications that specifically deal with emitting reviews. The design did not take into consideration applications that already deal with content, but want to supplement it with reviews, listings, etc. There's no mention of such consideration in the spec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We want to appeal to the wide populace of bloggers who just want to get stuff done. Rather than put the burden on millions of bloggers out there, we should place the burden on the few companies developing crawlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would Tantek say? I think he'd ask us to focus on use cases, real examples. I'm presenting one such example. The use case involves a blogger who just wants to sell something on their blog, with the minimum amount of effort and cognitive friction. They want the listing to be discovered, aggregated and searched by others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''Neighborhood Name''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the exception of housing, most classified listings donât contain a specific address (e.g., if Iâm selling my couch, you donât need to know where I live in the listing).    Some location information, however, is important.  In most suburban areas, the name of the town is sufficient.  In cities, however, neighborhood is important and more contextually relevant than zipcode (simply a region defined by the post office).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a tough problem that needs to be solved but outside the context of this discussion.  We think there are other cases the could benefit from it, including hReview and hEvent.  We recommend that this debate be surface in the adr microformation discussion (e.g., perhaps extend the locality field (city) to optionally include a neighborhood)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Craig Donato &amp;amp; Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''Listing Action, Listing Type, Item Type''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We heavily debated how to classify a listing.  Search engines or marketplaces typically need to understand what type of listing it is (e.g., personal ad, house for sale, music) to effectively reference or index a listing.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We initially considered proposing a single category field that contained tags (in addition to the tags field).  Not only did this seem duplicative, it also seemed like too much of a good thing.  In a previous project, Assaf managed to successfully overload everything into tags (including dates and locations), and run time-based and location-based searches, and ended up concluding it's a bad idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We eventually decided to propose the use three parametric field that when used together could define any type of listing independent of the words use to describe.  These ended up being: listing-type (are you offering something or looking for something; listing-action (are you trying to sell, rent, or announce something); and item type (what item is referenced by the action such as a job opening, product, housing).  By making small modifications to this vocabulary, users can specify an extremely wide range of potential transactions.  This seemed more feasible given that the UI used to produce the hListing could abstract some of this from the user (as Assaf demonstrated in his demo plugin).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
!Desired Transaction&lt;br /&gt;
!Listing Type&lt;br /&gt;
!Listing Action&lt;br /&gt;
!Item Type&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Merchandise For Sale&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking to Buy Merchandise&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Selling Tickets&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Event&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apartment For Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for Apartment&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Room for Rent (Roommate)&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for a Date&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer||Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce, Meet&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Job Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for a Job (Resume)&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Music Lessons&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Service&lt;br /&gt;
|Business&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Trade Couch for TV&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Trade&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pet for Adoption&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Animal?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
-- Craig Donato&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vertical ==&lt;br /&gt;
Adding &amp;quot;vertical&amp;quot; to the schema would take this idea a lot further and would add enough flexibility to kill off the need for further formats like hJob etc.  Specific verticals could be set (jobs, real estate, rentals, auto, other) with additional fields added as subsets of each vertical. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* vertical: rentals&lt;br /&gt;
* listing type: offer&lt;br /&gt;
* item type: house (vs. appartment)&lt;br /&gt;
* listing action: rent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[User:AaronMentele|Aaron Mentele]] (2006-12-26)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliminate Item Type ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can we eliminate item type and simply use tags?  Or perhaps inferred item type from the item info?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== hClassified? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are meanings of &amp;quot;listing&amp;quot; that wouldn't fit this format.. might not hClassified be a more descriptive name? It's not overconstraining... 'classifieds' being very broad in practice and the meaning very informally/functionally defined. Or has the 'listing' train left the station? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What about retail? == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retail is out of scope for hListing, sure -- but what microformat should a retail seller of (e.g. mass-produced) goods use? hForSale? hProduct?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Retail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Funnily enough, hProduct is always something that I've thought about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be bold enough to say that it will be one of the main uses of microformats in the future. Imagine the amount of shops, price comparison, product review and many more type of sites. It doesn't have to be for profit, it could just be someones product, on their site, that they are displaying.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be willing to help and continue development of a spec for 'hProduct'.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adam Craven&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Thubnail Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
Hello. I'm not sure I understand everything correctly, but from reading the hListing proposal it seems that one should put pictures of the listed subject into the &amp;quot;photo&amp;quot; class. I'm wondering if also we may wish to have a &amp;quot;thumnail&amp;quot; class or perhaps something like &amp;quot;photo-thumbnail&amp;quot; to denote thumbnail images.&lt;br /&gt;
-Andrew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Validator ==&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps to foster development of this type, someone (who knows a lot more about microformats than I) should put a validator type page out there. I realize that microformats, by their nature are a loose specification (it's not as strict as validating say an XML rss feed). But having something that I can use to at least verify that what I'm coding is actually recognized as an hListing by someone other than myself would be very helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
-Andrew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraction of hProduct ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it would be wise to extract product information into [[hproduct|hProduct]] and simply maintain the listing for listing-specific data (such as actual price/suggested price, location, timeframe, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, regarding price, I think going with the currency microformat makes sense, but I also think there should be specifics around the type of price being shown. For instance, there is a MSRP which is tied to the product (and ''should'' be in hProduct), then there is the asking price (or in the case of cars, the dealer invoice, sticker price, etc.). Perhaps going the route of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;price actual money&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;abbr class=&amp;quot;currency&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;USD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;$&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;3.00&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
would make more sense?&lt;br /&gt;
- Aaron Gustafson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use for Microphilanthropy and Volunteer listings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adding 'Donate', as Rohit suggested, would open up hListing for use by microphilanthropy sites like www.Kiva.org or www.DonorsChoose.org (I work there.) See here for an example of one of our listings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.donorschoose.org/donors/proposal.html?id=64964&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So an organization seeking a donation would format it Listing Type: Wanted, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone looking to donate an old PC would format it Listing Type: Offer, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Product&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An organization trying to find a volunteer would have Listing Type: Wanted, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Service&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that some organizations (like Kiva) are doing microloans, instead of microphilanthropy. So in addition to Sell, Rent, Trade, Meet, Announce, and Donate, &amp;quot;Loan&amp;quot; would be useful as a Listing Action. (Could also be useful for facilitating borrowing relationships of items.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One other addition to hListing that might be useful in this context is Cost. In a commercial setting (say, you're trying to sell a used item on eBay), Cost would represent what you paid for the item. So Price - Cost would get you the markup (or markdown). In a philanthropic context, Cost would represent the cost to make a project happen. If the project were already partially funded, then Price &amp;lt; Cost, and Price / Cost would give you the % remaining to completely fund that project. (Many microphilanthropy sites bundle lots of donations to make up one project.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Mike Everett-Lane&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Job listings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discussion over on the [http://microformats.org/wiki/job-listing-brainstorming Job Listing microformat page] discusses the possibility of using the hlisting format instead of creating a new format. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While jobs can be described using Listing Type=&amp;quot;Offer&amp;quot;, Listing Action = &amp;quot;Announce&amp;quot; and Item Type =&amp;quot;Opening&amp;quot;. Additional mark ups are required to meet the basic job board usages. For example Australian job boards all have Industries, Salary ranges, types of jobs, and a URL for the application. Being able to incorporate these key elements into the hlisting spec would be great. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Michael Specht&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ongoing Rental Availability Calendar ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Renting is a very common activity addressed by this microformat, and it appears to deal with it very well. However, I was wondering what is the correct way of marking up a common web element: an availability calendar? Say we have the month of February 2010 available, then that's quite easy: a single hListing from start to end. Then if someone books the second week: do we then have 3 hListings (1st week as free, 2nd week as booked, 3rd-4th weeks joined as free)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All 3 must be marked up with dtlisted as the day that they were created, the free chunks will have dtexpired set to the day that they begin (or end if you're happy to rent after the chunk has begun), and the taken week will have dtexpired as the day it was booked. However that leaves no room for the actual date data of the dates available for rent - surely a very common way of renting things (cars, accommodation, private jets etc.). Should we be using an hEvent inside the hListing (or vice versa)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might make some sense to &amp;quot;chunk up&amp;quot; the dates that you will rent by, e.g. property is often rented on a whole weekly basis, and you could then have an hEvent for each &amp;quot;chunk&amp;quot;. However things like cars and private jets are often rented by the day or hour... making the hEvent &amp;quot;chunks&amp;quot; seem prohibitively numerous. It would seem like we need an extra &amp;quot;period&amp;quot; property for hListing Rentals (e.g. weekly for apartments, daily for cars) and then have the smallest number of hListing-hEvent combos required to describe the current availability. This would allow for hEvents to cover multiple &amp;quot;periods&amp;quot; available for rent (e.g. the 3rd and 4th weeks from my original February 2010 example combined) while still allowing consuming systems to show that you can rent one or more of these periods without having to book the entire time covered by the hEvent. Or is there a better way?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[MicroAngelo]] 2009-01-15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== RE: Item Info ==&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading the draft spec, I came across the following in the definition of the item info portion of [[hListing]]: &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Unique item IDs (e.g. ISBNs, UPCs) MAY be represented as a URN (&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;) for the item.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; If you look at [http://www.isbn.org ISBN.org]'s website, they warn strongly against using &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s as unique IDs because often times, a book with the &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;same title&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; may have &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;different&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no encoding within the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; 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 &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. I believe that this is not the only microformat that has this issue. Others may be [[hReview]] and [[hProduct]]. I understand that many listings defer the notion of a unique item identifier; I only wish to raise awareness of the fact that &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; numbers should not be used as a form of unique identification because there is not a 1:1 correspondence between a book title and an &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;. 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 &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;books&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;&amp;amp;mdash;or &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;products&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;, if you like&amp;amp;mdash;even though the books are all the &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;same&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; title, just having different &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;s. This makes it much more difficult to aggregate reviews for such items as books (ahem&amp;amp;mdash;or should I say, &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;titles&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; ;) ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;vcard&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;fn&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://discoveringcode.blogspot.com &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;&amp;gt;codeguru413&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 2010-07-05&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; used as a unique ID debate doesn't really apply to [[hListing]] or [[hProduct]] afterall&amp;amp;mdash;at least, not so far as the information pertaining to a book. The use of this microformat is for items for sale. Generally, you will sell a book, not a complete title! Therefore, the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; is appropriate for this type of microformat. However, reviews included with the [[hListing]] or [[hProduct]] for a book should avoid using the &amp;lt;abbr title=&amp;quot;International Standard Book Number&amp;quot;&amp;gt;ISBN&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt; as an identifier per my original comments above. I think I will copy the main part of this comment on over to the appropriate [[hReview]] page where it is more applicable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;vcard&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;fn&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://discoveringcode.blogspot.com &amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;&amp;gt;codeguru413&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 2010-07-10&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Codeguru413</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hlisting-feedback&amp;diff=42787</id>
		<title>hlisting-feedback</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hlisting-feedback&amp;diff=42787"/>
		<updated>2010-07-10T14:09:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Codeguru413: /* RE: Item Info */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;cnaroda&lt;br /&gt;
== Schema Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Item ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* is class=&amp;quot;item&amp;quot; a part of the spec? It is not clear from the highlight in the proposal.&lt;br /&gt;
* if it is, is it optional (as in the [[hlisting-proposal#Schema|schema]]) or required (as implied by the item [[hlisting-proposal#Item_Metadata|item metadata]] section). My feeling is that it should be required&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[DavidJanes]] 2006-11-18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Listing Action ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;listing action&amp;quot; is another one that confuses me, is that two words, one word &amp;quot;listing-action&amp;quot; or just a tag with some of the recommended values... it is required, but i don't see it in action on edgeio.com or Dealtagger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[BrianSuda]] 2006-11-18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Make Info/Photo fields Optional ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
WordPress has a great WYSIWYG editor that lets you drag &amp;amp; drop images. &lt;br /&gt;
But the only semantic identification it uses is the HTML &amp;lt;img&amp;gt; element. &lt;br /&gt;
So how do we get a photo to be identified from all the images inside the description?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Manually edit the HTML that WordPress creates to add the class.&lt;br /&gt;
2. Add another UI doubling the one already used by WordPress, sans drag &amp;amp; drop, strictly for images designated as photos.&lt;br /&gt;
3. Tag every single image as photo.&lt;br /&gt;
4. Have the crawler interpret every single image as photo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure we want to push the complexity to the edge, that's like asking people to create only valid XHTML pages and not rendering anything that refuses to validate. This is about humans first, machines second. If complexity needs to exist, it should be not in the blog, but in the crawlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Default Action ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think it's good form to have a default for every required field, since someone out there is going to drop any given requried field in the land of microformats. In that spirit, the default for listing type is offer, since wanted ads are &amp;lt;&amp;lt; 10% in the real world. What I don't know is what the default action should be; the most neutral of them is ''announce'', which I am using in my parser.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Rohit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Donations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sell and Rent are obvious enough verbs; what does Trade mean, though? Barter? And what about one-sided gifts, like donations or &amp;quot;free to recycle&amp;quot;? Should we replace Trade and offer Donate in its place?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Rohit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Desire to Inherit Context ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to blog posting, Iâd like to see us address the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. '''Less is more'''. Or in reverse, people are lazy, and the less fields they need to fill in order to sell a couch or find a date, the more they'll use the plugin. So I'm trying to visualize how this plays in with the user interface and how we can keep it as simple as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. '''DRY'''. We want to capture as much information as possible from what is already available in the blog post. We already have summary (title), listing date/time (post date/time), permalink, author information, tags/categories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. '''Keep it simple'''. And here I'm talking about setup and being able to extend your blog's functionality without too much fuss. This one is a bit more tricky, so I'll go into details.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
WordPress uses templates to render the blog post. The template then calls the WordPress API to render the title, a second call to render the content, and another call to render any additional metadata (e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
publish date, categories, author). These separate calls allow people to play with the formatting and apply any styling they like.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way uPress works, is by processing the blog post before it goes back to the filter, creating the hEvent (to be: hListing) element around it, and adding any relevant fields into the blog post. So what you fill in the form, finds its way to the post content. As a result, setting up the plugin requires two steps: drop it to the plugins directory, and activate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I only get to process the content of the post. I can't easily include the title inside the hListing element, or any other metadata about the post, even though I have access to it. If I duplicate that information, the post stops being readable. And to wrap the entire post (not just body) inside a microformat element, I need to tweak the template. Except people use different templates, and I can't tweak all of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the more context we use, the better the plugin becomes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''On hReview''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This draft was heavily influenced by hReview. That's a good thing. We donât want to duplicate efforts; are learning from the mistakes of others; and converging on a cohesive set of specifications. I want to eventually add hReview and hCard to my plugin. So this strategy of borrowing from existing microformats helps me get it done quicker. It took me all of five minutes to leverage address formatting from hEvent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But we also need to recognize that hReview could also be more blogging friendly. The specification is great, but the implementations are lacking. I think the reason is that hReview was designed for greenfield applications that specifically deal with emitting reviews. The design did not take into consideration applications that already deal with content, but want to supplement it with reviews, listings, etc. There's no mention of such consideration in the spec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We want to appeal to the wide populace of bloggers who just want to get stuff done. Rather than put the burden on millions of bloggers out there, we should place the burden on the few companies developing crawlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would Tantek say? I think he'd ask us to focus on use cases, real examples. I'm presenting one such example. The use case involves a blogger who just wants to sell something on their blog, with the minimum amount of effort and cognitive friction. They want the listing to be discovered, aggregated and searched by others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''Neighborhood Name''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the exception of housing, most classified listings donât contain a specific address (e.g., if Iâm selling my couch, you donât need to know where I live in the listing).    Some location information, however, is important.  In most suburban areas, the name of the town is sufficient.  In cities, however, neighborhood is important and more contextually relevant than zipcode (simply a region defined by the post office).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a tough problem that needs to be solved but outside the context of this discussion.  We think there are other cases the could benefit from it, including hReview and hEvent.  We recommend that this debate be surface in the adr microformation discussion (e.g., perhaps extend the locality field (city) to optionally include a neighborhood)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Craig Donato &amp;amp; Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''Listing Action, Listing Type, Item Type''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We heavily debated how to classify a listing.  Search engines or marketplaces typically need to understand what type of listing it is (e.g., personal ad, house for sale, music) to effectively reference or index a listing.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We initially considered proposing a single category field that contained tags (in addition to the tags field).  Not only did this seem duplicative, it also seemed like too much of a good thing.  In a previous project, Assaf managed to successfully overload everything into tags (including dates and locations), and run time-based and location-based searches, and ended up concluding it's a bad idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We eventually decided to propose the use three parametric field that when used together could define any type of listing independent of the words use to describe.  These ended up being: listing-type (are you offering something or looking for something; listing-action (are you trying to sell, rent, or announce something); and item type (what item is referenced by the action such as a job opening, product, housing).  By making small modifications to this vocabulary, users can specify an extremely wide range of potential transactions.  This seemed more feasible given that the UI used to produce the hListing could abstract some of this from the user (as Assaf demonstrated in his demo plugin).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
!Desired Transaction&lt;br /&gt;
!Listing Type&lt;br /&gt;
!Listing Action&lt;br /&gt;
!Item Type&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Merchandise For Sale&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking to Buy Merchandise&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Selling Tickets&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Event&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apartment For Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for Apartment&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Room for Rent (Roommate)&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for a Date&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer||Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce, Meet&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Job Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for a Job (Resume)&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Music Lessons&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Service&lt;br /&gt;
|Business&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Trade Couch for TV&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Trade&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pet for Adoption&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Animal?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
-- Craig Donato&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vertical ==&lt;br /&gt;
Adding &amp;quot;vertical&amp;quot; to the schema would take this idea a lot further and would add enough flexibility to kill off the need for further formats like hJob etc.  Specific verticals could be set (jobs, real estate, rentals, auto, other) with additional fields added as subsets of each vertical. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* vertical: rentals&lt;br /&gt;
* listing type: offer&lt;br /&gt;
* item type: house (vs. appartment)&lt;br /&gt;
* listing action: rent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[User:AaronMentele|Aaron Mentele]] (2006-12-26)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliminate Item Type ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can we eliminate item type and simply use tags?  Or perhaps inferred item type from the item info?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== hClassified? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are meanings of &amp;quot;listing&amp;quot; that wouldn't fit this format.. might not hClassified be a more descriptive name? It's not overconstraining... 'classifieds' being very broad in practice and the meaning very informally/functionally defined. Or has the 'listing' train left the station? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What about retail? == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retail is out of scope for hListing, sure -- but what microformat should a retail seller of (e.g. mass-produced) goods use? hForSale? hProduct?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Retail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Funnily enough, hProduct is always something that I've thought about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be bold enough to say that it will be one of the main uses of microformats in the future. Imagine the amount of shops, price comparison, product review and many more type of sites. It doesn't have to be for profit, it could just be someones product, on their site, that they are displaying.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be willing to help and continue development of a spec for 'hProduct'.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adam Craven&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Thubnail Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
Hello. I'm not sure I understand everything correctly, but from reading the hListing proposal it seems that one should put pictures of the listed subject into the &amp;quot;photo&amp;quot; class. I'm wondering if also we may wish to have a &amp;quot;thumnail&amp;quot; class or perhaps something like &amp;quot;photo-thumbnail&amp;quot; to denote thumbnail images.&lt;br /&gt;
-Andrew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Validator ==&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps to foster development of this type, someone (who knows a lot more about microformats than I) should put a validator type page out there. I realize that microformats, by their nature are a loose specification (it's not as strict as validating say an XML rss feed). But having something that I can use to at least verify that what I'm coding is actually recognized as an hListing by someone other than myself would be very helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
-Andrew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraction of hProduct ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it would be wise to extract product information into [[hproduct|hProduct]] and simply maintain the listing for listing-specific data (such as actual price/suggested price, location, timeframe, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, regarding price, I think going with the currency microformat makes sense, but I also think there should be specifics around the type of price being shown. For instance, there is a MSRP which is tied to the product (and ''should'' be in hProduct), then there is the asking price (or in the case of cars, the dealer invoice, sticker price, etc.). Perhaps going the route of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;price actual money&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;abbr class=&amp;quot;currency&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;USD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;$&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;3.00&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
would make more sense?&lt;br /&gt;
- Aaron Gustafson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use for Microphilanthropy and Volunteer listings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adding 'Donate', as Rohit suggested, would open up hListing for use by microphilanthropy sites like www.Kiva.org or www.DonorsChoose.org (I work there.) See here for an example of one of our listings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.donorschoose.org/donors/proposal.html?id=64964&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So an organization seeking a donation would format it Listing Type: Wanted, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone looking to donate an old PC would format it Listing Type: Offer, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Product&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An organization trying to find a volunteer would have Listing Type: Wanted, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Service&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that some organizations (like Kiva) are doing microloans, instead of microphilanthropy. So in addition to Sell, Rent, Trade, Meet, Announce, and Donate, &amp;quot;Loan&amp;quot; would be useful as a Listing Action. (Could also be useful for facilitating borrowing relationships of items.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One other addition to hListing that might be useful in this context is Cost. In a commercial setting (say, you're trying to sell a used item on eBay), Cost would represent what you paid for the item. So Price - Cost would get you the markup (or markdown). In a philanthropic context, Cost would represent the cost to make a project happen. If the project were already partially funded, then Price &amp;lt; Cost, and Price / Cost would give you the % remaining to completely fund that project. (Many microphilanthropy sites bundle lots of donations to make up one project.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Mike Everett-Lane&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Job listings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discussion over on the [http://microformats.org/wiki/job-listing-brainstorming Job Listing microformat page] discusses the possibility of using the hlisting format instead of creating a new format. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While jobs can be described using Listing Type=&amp;quot;Offer&amp;quot;, Listing Action = &amp;quot;Announce&amp;quot; and Item Type =&amp;quot;Opening&amp;quot;. Additional mark ups are required to meet the basic job board usages. For example Australian job boards all have Industries, Salary ranges, types of jobs, and a URL for the application. Being able to incorporate these key elements into the hlisting spec would be great. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Michael Specht&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ongoing Rental Availability Calendar ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Renting is a very common activity addressed by this microformat, and it appears to deal with it very well. However, I was wondering what is the correct way of marking up a common web element: an availability calendar? Say we have the month of February 2010 available, then that's quite easy: a single hListing from start to end. Then if someone books the second week: do we then have 3 hListings (1st week as free, 2nd week as booked, 3rd-4th weeks joined as free)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All 3 must be marked up with dtlisted as the day that they were created, the free chunks will have dtexpired set to the day that they begin (or end if you're happy to rent after the chunk has begun), and the taken week will have dtexpired as the day it was booked. However that leaves no room for the actual date data of the dates available for rent - surely a very common way of renting things (cars, accommodation, private jets etc.). Should we be using an hEvent inside the hListing (or vice versa)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might make some sense to &amp;quot;chunk up&amp;quot; the dates that you will rent by, e.g. property is often rented on a whole weekly basis, and you could then have an hEvent for each &amp;quot;chunk&amp;quot;. However things like cars and private jets are often rented by the day or hour... making the hEvent &amp;quot;chunks&amp;quot; seem prohibitively numerous. It would seem like we need an extra &amp;quot;period&amp;quot; property for hListing Rentals (e.g. weekly for apartments, daily for cars) and then have the smallest number of hListing-hEvent combos required to describe the current availability. This would allow for hEvents to cover multiple &amp;quot;periods&amp;quot; available for rent (e.g. the 3rd and 4th weeks from my original February 2010 example combined) while still allowing consuming systems to show that you can rent one or more of these periods without having to book the entire time covered by the hEvent. Or is there a better way?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[MicroAngelo]] 2009-01-15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== RE: Item Info ==&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading the draft spec, I came across this in the definition of the item info portion of hListing: &amp;quot;Unique item IDs (e.g. ISBNs, UPCs) MAY be represented as a URN (&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;) for the item.&amp;quot; If you look at [http://www.isbn.org ISBN.org]'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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 publisher, they will have different ISBNs. In addition, perhaps a later printing is printed by another publishing company that subsumed the original publishing company. The reprint will definitely have a different ISBN in this case (since ISBN numbers are tied to publishers). I believe that this is not the only microformat that has this issue. Others may be hReview and hProduct. I understand that many listings defer the notion of a unique item identifier; I only wish to raise awareness of the fact that ISBN numbers should not be used as a form of unique identification because there is not a 1:1 correspondence between a book title and an ISBN. 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 &amp;quot;books&amp;quot;--or &amp;quot;products&amp;quot;, if you like--even though the books are all the same title, just having different ISBNs. This makes it much more difficult to aggregate reviews for such items as books (or--ahem, should I say, titles ;) ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- codeguru413 2010-07-05&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually the ISBN used as a unique ID debate doesn't really apply to hListing afterall. The use of this microformat is for items for sale. Generally, you will sell a book, not a complete title! Therefore, the ISBN is appropriate. However, I think I will copy the main part of this comment on over to the hReview page where it is more applicable since a review (for a &amp;quot;book&amp;quot;), typically, is on the title itself, and not on the particular book of the title.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- codeguru413 2010-07-10&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Codeguru413</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hlisting-feedback&amp;diff=42755</id>
		<title>hlisting-feedback</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=hlisting-feedback&amp;diff=42755"/>
		<updated>2010-07-06T01:56:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Codeguru413: Added issue for item info&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;cnaroda&lt;br /&gt;
== Schema Issues ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Item ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* is class=&amp;quot;item&amp;quot; a part of the spec? It is not clear from the highlight in the proposal.&lt;br /&gt;
* if it is, is it optional (as in the [[hlisting-proposal#Schema|schema]]) or required (as implied by the item [[hlisting-proposal#Item_Metadata|item metadata]] section). My feeling is that it should be required&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[DavidJanes]] 2006-11-18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Listing Action ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;listing action&amp;quot; is another one that confuses me, is that two words, one word &amp;quot;listing-action&amp;quot; or just a tag with some of the recommended values... it is required, but i don't see it in action on edgeio.com or Dealtagger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[BrianSuda]] 2006-11-18&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Make Info/Photo fields Optional ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
WordPress has a great WYSIWYG editor that lets you drag &amp;amp; drop images. &lt;br /&gt;
But the only semantic identification it uses is the HTML &amp;lt;img&amp;gt; element. &lt;br /&gt;
So how do we get a photo to be identified from all the images inside the description?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. Manually edit the HTML that WordPress creates to add the class.&lt;br /&gt;
2. Add another UI doubling the one already used by WordPress, sans drag &amp;amp; drop, strictly for images designated as photos.&lt;br /&gt;
3. Tag every single image as photo.&lt;br /&gt;
4. Have the crawler interpret every single image as photo.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure we want to push the complexity to the edge, that's like asking people to create only valid XHTML pages and not rendering anything that refuses to validate. This is about humans first, machines second. If complexity needs to exist, it should be not in the blog, but in the crawlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Default Action ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think it's good form to have a default for every required field, since someone out there is going to drop any given requried field in the land of microformats. In that spirit, the default for listing type is offer, since wanted ads are &amp;lt;&amp;lt; 10% in the real world. What I don't know is what the default action should be; the most neutral of them is ''announce'', which I am using in my parser.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Rohit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Donations ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sell and Rent are obvious enough verbs; what does Trade mean, though? Barter? And what about one-sided gifts, like donations or &amp;quot;free to recycle&amp;quot;? Should we replace Trade and offer Donate in its place?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Rohit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Desire to Inherit Context ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it comes to blog posting, Iâd like to see us address the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. '''Less is more'''. Or in reverse, people are lazy, and the less fields they need to fill in order to sell a couch or find a date, the more they'll use the plugin. So I'm trying to visualize how this plays in with the user interface and how we can keep it as simple as possible.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. '''DRY'''. We want to capture as much information as possible from what is already available in the blog post. We already have summary (title), listing date/time (post date/time), permalink, author information, tags/categories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. '''Keep it simple'''. And here I'm talking about setup and being able to extend your blog's functionality without too much fuss. This one is a bit more tricky, so I'll go into details.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
WordPress uses templates to render the blog post. The template then calls the WordPress API to render the title, a second call to render the content, and another call to render any additional metadata (e.g. &lt;br /&gt;
publish date, categories, author). These separate calls allow people to play with the formatting and apply any styling they like.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way uPress works, is by processing the blog post before it goes back to the filter, creating the hEvent (to be: hListing) element around it, and adding any relevant fields into the blog post. So what you fill in the form, finds its way to the post content. As a result, setting up the plugin requires two steps: drop it to the plugins directory, and activate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I only get to process the content of the post. I can't easily include the title inside the hListing element, or any other metadata about the post, even though I have access to it. If I duplicate that information, the post stops being readable. And to wrap the entire post (not just body) inside a microformat element, I need to tweak the template. Except people use different templates, and I can't tweak all of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the more context we use, the better the plugin becomes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''On hReview''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This draft was heavily influenced by hReview. That's a good thing. We donât want to duplicate efforts; are learning from the mistakes of others; and converging on a cohesive set of specifications. I want to eventually add hReview and hCard to my plugin. So this strategy of borrowing from existing microformats helps me get it done quicker. It took me all of five minutes to leverage address formatting from hEvent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But we also need to recognize that hReview could also be more blogging friendly. The specification is great, but the implementations are lacking. I think the reason is that hReview was designed for greenfield applications that specifically deal with emitting reviews. The design did not take into consideration applications that already deal with content, but want to supplement it with reviews, listings, etc. There's no mention of such consideration in the spec.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We want to appeal to the wide populace of bloggers who just want to get stuff done. Rather than put the burden on millions of bloggers out there, we should place the burden on the few companies developing crawlers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What would Tantek say? I think he'd ask us to focus on use cases, real examples. I'm presenting one such example. The use case involves a blogger who just wants to sell something on their blog, with the minimum amount of effort and cognitive friction. They want the listing to be discovered, aggregated and searched by others.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''Neighborhood Name''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the exception of housing, most classified listings donât contain a specific address (e.g., if Iâm selling my couch, you donât need to know where I live in the listing).    Some location information, however, is important.  In most suburban areas, the name of the town is sufficient.  In cities, however, neighborhood is important and more contextually relevant than zipcode (simply a region defined by the post office).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a tough problem that needs to be solved but outside the context of this discussion.  We think there are other cases the could benefit from it, including hReview and hEvent.  We recommend that this debate be surface in the adr microformation discussion (e.g., perhaps extend the locality field (city) to optionally include a neighborhood)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Craig Donato &amp;amp; Assaf Arkin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== '''Listing Action, Listing Type, Item Type''' ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We heavily debated how to classify a listing.  Search engines or marketplaces typically need to understand what type of listing it is (e.g., personal ad, house for sale, music) to effectively reference or index a listing.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We initially considered proposing a single category field that contained tags (in addition to the tags field).  Not only did this seem duplicative, it also seemed like too much of a good thing.  In a previous project, Assaf managed to successfully overload everything into tags (including dates and locations), and run time-based and location-based searches, and ended up concluding it's a bad idea.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We eventually decided to propose the use three parametric field that when used together could define any type of listing independent of the words use to describe.  These ended up being: listing-type (are you offering something or looking for something; listing-action (are you trying to sell, rent, or announce something); and item type (what item is referenced by the action such as a job opening, product, housing).  By making small modifications to this vocabulary, users can specify an extremely wide range of potential transactions.  This seemed more feasible given that the UI used to produce the hListing could abstract some of this from the user (as Assaf demonstrated in his demo plugin).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
!Desired Transaction&lt;br /&gt;
!Listing Type&lt;br /&gt;
!Listing Action&lt;br /&gt;
!Item Type&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Merchandise For Sale&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking to Buy Merchandise&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Selling Tickets&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Sell&lt;br /&gt;
|Event&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Apartment For Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for Apartment&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Room for Rent (Roommate)&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Rent&lt;br /&gt;
|Housing&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for a Date&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer||Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce, Meet&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Job Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Looking for a Job (Resume)&lt;br /&gt;
|Wanted&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Opening&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Music Lessons&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Service&lt;br /&gt;
|Business&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Trade Couch for TV&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Trade&lt;br /&gt;
|Product&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pet for Adoption&lt;br /&gt;
|Offer&lt;br /&gt;
|Announce&lt;br /&gt;
|Animal?&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
-- Craig Donato&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vertical ==&lt;br /&gt;
Adding &amp;quot;vertical&amp;quot; to the schema would take this idea a lot further and would add enough flexibility to kill off the need for further formats like hJob etc.  Specific verticals could be set (jobs, real estate, rentals, auto, other) with additional fields added as subsets of each vertical. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* vertical: rentals&lt;br /&gt;
* listing type: offer&lt;br /&gt;
* item type: house (vs. appartment)&lt;br /&gt;
* listing action: rent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[User:AaronMentele|Aaron Mentele]] (2006-12-26)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliminate Item Type ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can we eliminate item type and simply use tags?  Or perhaps inferred item type from the item info?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== hClassified? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are meanings of &amp;quot;listing&amp;quot; that wouldn't fit this format.. might not hClassified be a more descriptive name? It's not overconstraining... 'classifieds' being very broad in practice and the meaning very informally/functionally defined. Or has the 'listing' train left the station? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What about retail? == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Retail is out of scope for hListing, sure -- but what microformat should a retail seller of (e.g. mass-produced) goods use? hForSale? hProduct?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Retail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Funnily enough, hProduct is always something that I've thought about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be bold enough to say that it will be one of the main uses of microformats in the future. Imagine the amount of shops, price comparison, product review and many more type of sites. It doesn't have to be for profit, it could just be someones product, on their site, that they are displaying.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd be willing to help and continue development of a spec for 'hProduct'.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adam Craven&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Thubnail Class ==&lt;br /&gt;
Hello. I'm not sure I understand everything correctly, but from reading the hListing proposal it seems that one should put pictures of the listed subject into the &amp;quot;photo&amp;quot; class. I'm wondering if also we may wish to have a &amp;quot;thumnail&amp;quot; class or perhaps something like &amp;quot;photo-thumbnail&amp;quot; to denote thumbnail images.&lt;br /&gt;
-Andrew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Validator ==&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps to foster development of this type, someone (who knows a lot more about microformats than I) should put a validator type page out there. I realize that microformats, by their nature are a loose specification (it's not as strict as validating say an XML rss feed). But having something that I can use to at least verify that what I'm coding is actually recognized as an hListing by someone other than myself would be very helpful.&lt;br /&gt;
-Andrew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraction of hProduct ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it would be wise to extract product information into [[hproduct|hProduct]] and simply maintain the listing for listing-specific data (such as actual price/suggested price, location, timeframe, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, regarding price, I think going with the currency microformat makes sense, but I also think there should be specifics around the type of price being shown. For instance, there is a MSRP which is tied to the product (and ''should'' be in hProduct), then there is the asking price (or in the case of cars, the dealer invoice, sticker price, etc.). Perhaps going the route of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p class=&amp;quot;price actual money&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;abbr class=&amp;quot;currency&amp;quot; title=&amp;quot;USD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;$&amp;lt;/abbr&amp;gt;3.00&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
would make more sense?&lt;br /&gt;
- Aaron Gustafson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Use for Microphilanthropy and Volunteer listings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adding 'Donate', as Rohit suggested, would open up hListing for use by microphilanthropy sites like www.Kiva.org or www.DonorsChoose.org (I work there.) See here for an example of one of our listings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.donorschoose.org/donors/proposal.html?id=64964&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So an organization seeking a donation would format it Listing Type: Wanted, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone looking to donate an old PC would format it Listing Type: Offer, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Product&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An organization trying to find a volunteer would have Listing Type: Wanted, Listing Action: Donate, Listing Item: Service&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that some organizations (like Kiva) are doing microloans, instead of microphilanthropy. So in addition to Sell, Rent, Trade, Meet, Announce, and Donate, &amp;quot;Loan&amp;quot; would be useful as a Listing Action. (Could also be useful for facilitating borrowing relationships of items.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One other addition to hListing that might be useful in this context is Cost. In a commercial setting (say, you're trying to sell a used item on eBay), Cost would represent what you paid for the item. So Price - Cost would get you the markup (or markdown). In a philanthropic context, Cost would represent the cost to make a project happen. If the project were already partially funded, then Price &amp;lt; Cost, and Price / Cost would give you the % remaining to completely fund that project. (Many microphilanthropy sites bundle lots of donations to make up one project.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Mike Everett-Lane&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Job listings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discussion over on the [http://microformats.org/wiki/job-listing-brainstorming Job Listing microformat page] discusses the possibility of using the hlisting format instead of creating a new format. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While jobs can be described using Listing Type=&amp;quot;Offer&amp;quot;, Listing Action = &amp;quot;Announce&amp;quot; and Item Type =&amp;quot;Opening&amp;quot;. Additional mark ups are required to meet the basic job board usages. For example Australian job boards all have Industries, Salary ranges, types of jobs, and a URL for the application. Being able to incorporate these key elements into the hlisting spec would be great. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- Michael Specht&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ongoing Rental Availability Calendar ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Renting is a very common activity addressed by this microformat, and it appears to deal with it very well. However, I was wondering what is the correct way of marking up a common web element: an availability calendar? Say we have the month of February 2010 available, then that's quite easy: a single hListing from start to end. Then if someone books the second week: do we then have 3 hListings (1st week as free, 2nd week as booked, 3rd-4th weeks joined as free)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All 3 must be marked up with dtlisted as the day that they were created, the free chunks will have dtexpired set to the day that they begin (or end if you're happy to rent after the chunk has begun), and the taken week will have dtexpired as the day it was booked. However that leaves no room for the actual date data of the dates available for rent - surely a very common way of renting things (cars, accommodation, private jets etc.). Should we be using an hEvent inside the hListing (or vice versa)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It might make some sense to &amp;quot;chunk up&amp;quot; the dates that you will rent by, e.g. property is often rented on a whole weekly basis, and you could then have an hEvent for each &amp;quot;chunk&amp;quot;. However things like cars and private jets are often rented by the day or hour... making the hEvent &amp;quot;chunks&amp;quot; seem prohibitively numerous. It would seem like we need an extra &amp;quot;period&amp;quot; property for hListing Rentals (e.g. weekly for apartments, daily for cars) and then have the smallest number of hListing-hEvent combos required to describe the current availability. This would allow for hEvents to cover multiple &amp;quot;periods&amp;quot; available for rent (e.g. the 3rd and 4th weeks from my original February 2010 example combined) while still allowing consuming systems to show that you can rent one or more of these periods without having to book the entire time covered by the hEvent. Or is there a better way?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- [[MicroAngelo]] 2009-01-15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== RE: Item Info ==&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading the draft spec, I came across this in the definition of the item info portion of hListing: &amp;quot;Unique item IDs (e.g. ISBNs, UPCs) MAY be represented as a URN (&amp;quot;url&amp;quot;) for the item.&amp;quot; If you look at [http://www.isbn.org ISBN.org]'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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 publisher, they will have different ISBNs. In addition, perhaps a later printing is printed by another publishing company that subsumed the original publishing company. The reprint will definitely have a different ISBN in this case (since ISBN numbers are tied to publishers). I believe that this is not the only microformat that has this issue. Others may be hReview and hProduct. I understand that many listings defer the notion of a unique item identifier; I only wish to raise awareness of the fact that ISBN numbers should not be used as a form of unique identification because there is not a 1:1 correspondence between a book title and an ISBN. 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 &amp;quot;books&amp;quot;--or &amp;quot;products&amp;quot;, if you like--even though the books are all the same title, just having different ISBNs. This makes it much more difficult to aggregate reviews for such items as books (or--ahem, should I say, titles ;) ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-- codeguru413 2010-07-05&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Codeguru413</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>