W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2012

Re: CfC: Request transition of HTML Microdata to Candidate Recommendation

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:16:58 +0100
Message-ID: <50BCC26A.8030807@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 28/11/2012 16:54 , Julian Reschke wrote:
> For the record: I agree with Manu. It seems that the Microdata synta
> simply duplicates what RDFa Lite already does. Publishing both as CRs
> will unnecessarily cause confusion about what to use (or whether to use
> both).

No offence but I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding the 
"confusion" argument in a space that has brought us RDF/XML (original 
and revised flavours), Turtle, N-Triples, N3, N-Quads, JSON-LD, Hot 
Comments embedding, TRiG, XMP, and probably a few dozen things I'm 

I don't think anyone will be confused by a Microdata REC. At any rate, 
not more confused than they already are.

> At a minimum, it would be good to have a statement somewhere that
> explains the situation and provides some guidance for authors, but then,
> coming up with the exact text of that statement will probably be as
> controversial as everything else relating to this topic.

Why say that before giving it a shot? If a statement in MD acknowledging 
RDFa (and vice-versa) would be sufficient to make everyone happy, let's 
just do that.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 15:17:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:29 UTC