- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:16:58 +0100
- 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 forgetting. 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