- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:03:58 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On 09.06.2010 19:45, Jonas Sicking wrote: > ... > Ian has many times laid out technical arguments for why microdata was > developed in place of RDFa, I'd be really surprised if you had managed > to miss them all? In fact, it seems like the developers of RDFa has I didn't miss them; I just do not agree. > agreed with at least some of the arguments as the new version of RDFa > is aiming to solve the same problem, in an equally incompatible way > (at least that was the case last I looked). That may be true (and I'm also nervous about RDFa making too many changes). If you're referring to CURIEs in content: I don't think they are nearly as big a problem as some people make them. What *is* a problem is confusion about CURIEs vs URIs in the same place, such as @rel (and I have been complaining about that for a long time). > Also, since when is competing with another spec bad or disallowed? If It isn't. > we shouldn't compete with other specs then XML should not have been > developed as it competes with SGML, XHTML should not have been > developed as it competes with HTML. XSLT should not have been > developed as it competes with DSSSL. XSL:FO should not have been > developed as it competes with CSS. RDFa should not have been developed > as it competes with HTML4 (rel, class, profile etc). Competing with another spec is fine on equal ground. That was the core controversy that we had back when Microdata was silently added to the HTML spec. I'm ok with Ian writing as many new specs he wants, but his convenience isn't sufficient reason to include them all into HTML, or to make them all HTML WG deliverables. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 18:04:41 UTC