On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 13:37 +0000, Brian Suda wrote: > 2008/2/12, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 07:33 +0000, Brian Suda wrote: > > > --- WOW, after 6 days we have made a community wide change effecting 3 > > > years of effort with only 4 people weighing in! I am sorry i haven't > > > been timely enough to offer my thoughts. > > --- i volunteer with the community and have not have much time in the > last 6 days to properly give it the thought and discussions it > deserves. I would rather send a single email, then several continual > ones. Everyone benefits from a long hard thing rather than "shooting > from the hip" sorts of emails.
We all volunteer our time here, I apologize if my email seemed like it was "shooting from the hip" it was never intended that way. > > > as usual in this community If someone sees something they DON'T like > > they just ignore it and hope it will go away. > > --- i would disagree. There are several reasons people do not answer. > Maybe it was covered by someone else, maybe they are busy, maybe they > personally are not interested. fair comment... > > > Only when things change do people jump up and down and say how wrong it > > is! usually without offering any reasons why or any alternatives. > > --- this is certainly not the first time this discussion has come-up. > I know i have personally had a long phone call with Manu about hAudio > and several aspects of it. > > I would and do not jump up and down for every change, only ones which > i feel are bad choices. People are pretty fatigued from having this > debate over and over again without gaining any ground. which means it needs to be addressed not ignored as it has. > > The alternatives which have been discussed before are, do nothing and > use FN or use something like audio-title. Neither of which break > existing formats. Why TITLE was propose and (i feel) rushed through > with 4 +1´s is what i am not happy about - that is not community. > > > > I would kindly ask that you rollback your changes until this can be > > > discussed further 4 people in a community is not consensus. > > > > How would YOU address this issue, haudio needs a "title" 94% of our use > > case examples say so, what is the point of "the process" if you cant > > work to it? > > --- i believe it was solved with FN. I don't think it was "solved" we settled for second best. > My biggest concern is that fact > that by usurping the term TITLE you are breaking all the previous > hCards. I don't understand "how" it breaks hCard? > > I´m not saying we don´t NEED a term to represent the title of a work, > just don´t re-define terms that already have meaning. Terms that SHOULD have been thought of more before they became a specification, hcard hogging the class name "title" seems a little short sighted to me particularly when the word title has a vast amount of OTHER meanings none of which have anything to do with "job-titles" > > > A little guidance would be nice, instead of just saying this is wrong > > please offer a resolution, some guidance even? > > --- i am very close to the original hCard work, so i was not trying to > involve myself early in this discussion and sway the thought process. I think your thoughts would have been warmly received being on of the "respected" members of our community... > I purposely (what i thought was the impartial thing to do) let some > discussion move forward without my "interference". That discussion was > a few "+1"s and and an re-explanation of the original question. That > isn't a discussion. No It was ignored on the whole because of the hcard issues which is too much for a lot of people to think about so it gets left to the ones who can or want to "deal" with the question... > > The original logic in the question is flawed. The first portion is correct > > > FN in hCard means "the formatted name of a person or orgainzation". > > FN in hAudio currently means "the formatted name of an audio recording". > > It is the next portion which is misleading and wrong: > > > TITLE in hCard means "job title" I dont think that is an accurate description, simply the "function of the object" would be more correct and "generic" and not *break* anything > > TITLE in hAudio means "audio recording title" Consider this example Beethoven's Turkish March the "function of the object", the music that gets played through your speakers of headphones is a "Turkish March" > > It should be > TITLE in hCard means the Job Title of the person or organization > TITLE in hAudio means the Job Title of the audio recording > > The correct logic is completely fine, but that is not what the > proposal is trying to do. It is attempting to undo the definition of > TITLE across all microformats, which has been discussed before and > rejected in such formats as the citation. No I disagree there "should" be a serious discussion about changing the meaning of "title" in hcard (just a little) in order to allow "title" to be used in other uf's in a more accurate way, I very much doubt this would happen though do you? > > Due to lack of any sort of discussion, decent or any massive support, > i was not expecting to see such an important edit to the wiki page. > i´m not against haudio or having some sort of title property for the > format, what i do not like is attempting to break any format with any > property that has already been defined. I believe this issue is > already solved with FN, (IMHO) there is no need for this proposal to > use TITLE. > > So now you have my -1. Thank You 4 -1 > > -brian > _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
