W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ISSUE-76: Need feedback on splitting Microdata into separate specification

From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:42:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4AD75EEF.30804@weborganics.co.uk>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, public-html@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:39:00 +0200, Shelley Powers 
> <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote:
>> Forget RDFa for the moment: what is it about Microdata that's 
>> important to you, personally?
>
> Microdata is basically microformats 

Sorry Anne I disagree with that statement Microdata is nothing like 
microformats.

Microdata is not "Designed for humans first and machines second".

Microdata is not "a set of simple, open data formats built upon existing 
and widely adopted standards" (in fact quite the opposite really)

So Microdata fails two very basic principles of what microformats 
actually are.

> without all the problems and without the complexity of RDFa.

I disagree here too "RDFa is Complex" is a false statement RDFa is as 
complex or as simple as you like, "RDFa is complex"  its more of a 
"moot" statement based on just a few very edge cases.

I personally would like to see microdata dropped from the HTML5 spec 
completely, in favour of inviting the microformats communty to define 
how microfomats work in HTML5 not some person who has really no interest 
in any such formats... but who am I.

Best wishes

-- 
Martin McEvoy

http://weborganics.co.uk/

"You may find it hard to swallow the notion that anything as large and apparently inanimate as the Earth is alive."
Dr. James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2009 17:42:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:50 GMT