Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> Here's another question that needs asking. How much
real-world value
> does the use of the ISO standard for date time
representations
> actually add in this /particular/ case (hAudio
duration)?
> How often do these reasons apply to hAudio duration?
These questions are dangerously short-sighted, focusing on
just hAudio
will hurt the Microformats community in the long run... I'll
explain why
below.
> The impression I get is that the majority of cases
would be served
> fine by:
>
> <span class="duration"><span
class="minutes">2</span>:<span
> class="s">25</span></span>
This would be a giant pain to author, IMHO. Then again, it
fixes our
accessibility/usability issues - placing much of the load on
the
authors. If we make it this verbose to mark up this sort of
information,
do we think authors are going to mark up DURATION?
For sites like ours that are automated, we would have no
problem
adopting the approach listed above... but think about the
blog author
that has to mark up DURATION. Are they going to take the
time, or skip it?
What happens when somebody wants to specify a time duration
as
"twenty-three minutes"? Or a measurement as
"two stones"? Your proposal
above doesn't solve those problems.
Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On Sun, December 16, 2007 19:14, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> Paul Wilkins wrote:
>>
>>> Another possible solution is to provide greater
detail for the time
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> <abbr
title="00:23:00">2:23</abbr>
>
>> If you are suggesting that we use the hh:mm:ss time
format for
>> expressing duration, we cannot. That would be an
abuse of the ISO 8601
>> standard.
>
> We can, becasue we are not mandated to use the ISO 8601
standard.
So assume that we do that today...
We're locking in DURATION to have a very specific meaning
"a length of
time". To denote that length of time, you have hours,
minutes and
seconds HH:MM:SS.
Some time further down the line, somebody has another
Microformat that
needs to specify a time duration. Their time durations,
however, are in
years.
The problem comes in when the second person wants to denote
their time
duration in years. We've already said that DURATION is
"a length of
time" and specified a format HH:MM:SS. So now, authors
have to translate
years into hours... quite a pain, but it gets worse.
Later yet, in a future Microformat far, far away, somebody
comes along
and wants to specify time in fractions of a second.
Once again, they can't use DURATION because there is no
space for
fractions of a second (which you can specify in ISO8601).
Remember, this same thing happened with the TITLE tag in
Microformats.
TITLE is used to specify "a job title" in hCard.
This meant that we
couldn't use TITLE in hAudio because it meant "a job
title", not "the
title of an object, such as, but not limited to, a book,
movie, album,
or person".
By constricting DURATION to have a restrictive format,
HH:MM:SS, we are
being short-sighted and are not thinking about the other
Microformats
that are still to come that will need to specify DURATION.
"00:02:23" is being shortsighted. Let's learn from
our past and not make
the same mistake again... let's not be short-sighted about
this decision.
-- manu
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
|
