h-review-feedback: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (TOC) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{stub}} | |||
__TOC__ | |||
Feedback and discussion of [[h-review]]. Summarise any useful conclusions from discussions in [[irc]] here. | Feedback and discussion of [[h-review]]. Summarise any useful conclusions from discussions in [[irc]] here. | ||
= Feedback = | |||
Please add feedback, questions, etc. here. If you have a specific issue, please add it to [[h-review-issues]]. | |||
... | |||
= Accepted = | |||
Accepted proposals. | |||
== Consistency with other microformats == | == Consistency with other microformats == | ||
Some h-review properties are extremely similar to more generic, reusable properties in other microformats such as [[h-entry]], [[h-recipe]]: | Some h-review properties are extremely similar to more generic, reusable properties in other microformats such as [[h-entry]], [[h-recipe]]: | ||
| Line 9: | Line 18: | ||
* e-description => e-content | * e-description => e-content | ||
What is the value of duplicating these properties? Could they be merged, increasing consistency between microformats and reducing total amount of surface area which must be remembered? As there are almost no microformats2 h-reviews in the wild, right now would be a good time to make these changes --[[User:Barnabywalters|bw]] 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC) | <div class="discussion"> | ||
* What is the value of duplicating these properties? Could they be merged, increasing consistency between microformats and reducing total amount of surface area which must be remembered? As there are almost no microformats2 h-reviews in the wild, right now would be a good time to make these changes --[[User:Barnabywalters|bw]] 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
** +1 Would make the publishing side a little easier, and the consuming side a lot easier. Right now, Woodwind does not display h-reviews, but if they used mostly common properties, they would be easier to add. [[User:Kylewm|Kylewm]] 14:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
** +1 Agreed, especially since there are (still) so few microformats2 h-reviews in the wild. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
Done. [[h-review]] updated to incorporate this proposal. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 16:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:54, 29 May 2016
This article is a stub. You can help the microformats.org wiki by expanding it.
Feedback and discussion of h-review. Summarise any useful conclusions from discussions in irc here.
Feedback
Please add feedback, questions, etc. here. If you have a specific issue, please add it to h-review-issues.
...
Accepted
Accepted proposals.
Consistency with other microformats
Some h-review properties are extremely similar to more generic, reusable properties in other microformats such as h-entry, h-recipe:
- p-reviewer => p-author
- dt-reviewed => dt-published
- e-description => e-content
- What is the value of duplicating these properties? Could they be merged, increasing consistency between microformats and reducing total amount of surface area which must be remembered? As there are almost no microformats2 h-reviews in the wild, right now would be a good time to make these changes --bw 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- +1 Would make the publishing side a little easier, and the consuming side a lot easier. Right now, Woodwind does not display h-reviews, but if they used mostly common properties, they would be easier to add. Kylewm 14:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- +1 Agreed, especially since there are (still) so few microformats2 h-reviews in the wild. Tantek 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. h-review updated to incorporate this proposal. Tantek 16:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)