- From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:12:43 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ian, I'll admit that you're onto something when seeking a hands-down simpler solution for extensible metadata in HTML5. I wish everyone involved in this could let the arms down for a little bit and try to come up with a better solution. Of course, the dream is that such solution wouldn't totally disregard existing deployments because it can re-use existing test cases and user behavior. It should also take into account the 'hard evidence' you have accumulated through yours (and others' experiments) on what works and what doesn't. However, I think that making something up new (definitely based on some of your hard evidence, yet not really tested at least as much as RDFa) is simply not the best solution moving forward. On Aug 11, 2009, at 6:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Martin McEvoy wrote: >> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#selecting-names-when-defining-vocabularies >> >> I must have missed it ;) still reverse DNS identifiers are not really >> people friendly, and make your markup very bulky, I think microdata >> should have not included them, but that's my personal taste I guess. > > I feel the same way about URIs. :-) > > That's why I included both; that way people who like one can use > that, and > people who like the other can use that too. All of my intro simply to say that it's really confusing when you say stuff like: "I included both". I think this part is really the crux of the matter. You should be consistent and suggest something because you have data or real past user experience to prove it's better and not include "both" to leave things up to personal taste. I thought HTML5 was about not making the mistakes of the past. If you leave this up to choice, then maybe we need RDFa AND Microdata in HTML5 so people can choose, but obviously I believe that would be mistake (without even thinking of which one is right or better). I've been watching all of this prefix discussion around RDFa hoping to see an improvement on CURIE, but nothing jumps out yet. One obvious choice is not to have them at all and keep identifiers small. Anyway, I hope we can all continue these discussions, because I feel we're making progress and in the end it'll pay off for the Web. -Elias
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 23:13:28 UTC