On 1/11/07 11:16 AM, "Tim White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Michael McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> I agree, 'citation' is clearer - can we vote on this? > > + 1 for citation -1 for citation, it is too generic for a root class name. I've been trying to capture the methodology used to date for naming in microformats here: http://microformats.org/wiki/naming-principles I started to write a few words on microformats root class names in particular here: http://microformats.org/wiki/naming-principles#Unique_Root_Class_Names Unfortunately most of the actual methodology content for root class names in particular is captured in my brain dump of hCard parsing here: http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-parsing#root_class_name There is some history in the mailing list on this as well, but as is the case with email lists, it is difficult to find/search out. If you look at other "established" / adopted microformats, you'll see that they have fairly unique-ish root class names as well. hCalendar - vevent, vcalendar (taken from RFC2445) hReview - hreview (by pattern extension) xFolk - xfolkentry (I would have picked just 'xfolk' today, not sure why we went with xfolkentry) hListing proposal - hlisting I believe when Rohit Khare first proposed coming up with a citation microformat back in 2005 May at the WWW2005 conference in Tokyo, he used "hBib" or "hCite" (I don't quite remember, perhaps Rohit will see this and speak up) as a candidate name for the microformat. Thus here is another suggestion, based on what I remember of Rohit's idea, for the root class name for the citation microformat: hcite Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss