On Feb 12, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Martin McEvoy wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 18:30 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
That is a very wise interjection... I agree, we should be asking "is
it
safe to say TITLE means title?"
Yes it is.
hcard "broke" itself when it was decided that "title" should be
defined
as "Job title or functional position of the object" its very specific
and really only has something to do with a person when really should
have been referring to the "object"
I'd like to reiterate scott's point about avoiding polarizing
language. Decisions made about hCard (4 years ago) can't easily be
undone, so making remarks about their merits are counter-productive.
...
If we applied this principle to "title" which has many different
meaning's as we all know the definition would simply be "The title of
the object the hCard represents" which could then be re-used as simply
"The title of the object" I dont think this will "break" hcard in any
way It would enhance it further in my mind.
In the interest of precision, the hcard definition we're talking about
comes from vCard, section 3.5.1:
Type purpose: To specify the job title, functional position or
function of the object the vCard represents.
and
Type special notes: This type is based on the X.520 Title
attribute.
Type example:
TITLE:Director\, Research and Development
I can't seem to find any source for the semantics of X.520's title.
-ryan
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
