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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:12:09 +0100
Message-ID: <50BDBE69.2050006@gmx.de>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 2012-12-03 16:16, Robin Berjon wrote:
> 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.

Most of the things you list doesn't work at all for embedding metadata 
into HTML. *This* is what the confusion is about.

> 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.

I think that would be a big improvement.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 09:12:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 December 2012 09:12:49 GMT