W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > September 2008

Re: RDFa Trials and Travails ...

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:55:14 -0400
Message-ID: <48DBC272.8090804@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Steve Williams <sbw@digg.com>
CC: public-rdfa@w3.org

Steve Williams wrote:
>> http://playtheweb.org/2008/09/24/rdfa-trials-and-travails/
> 
> That pretty much describes what I'm feeling as I try to add more RDFa to
> Digg.

Unfortunately, they haven't approved a comment I made to that story
explaining some of the issues with the post... some of the complaints
are legitimate, some of them, not so much. Sadly, I didn't save the text
of the post - hopefully, they will approve it soon.

> The complexity of RDFa keeps pushing me back toward Microformats, but I
> sense that RDFa enables different things from Microformats.  Again, my
> example is SearchMonkey: Yahoo!'s crawler can index any RDFa, whether
> Dublin Core or my own custom vocabulary.  But they can only index formal
> microformats, because custom microformats are indistinguishable from
> ordinary mark-up.
> 
> In other words, if I must add custom metadata, RDFa lets me use it in a
> third-party tool with no prearrangement.  The same isn't possible with
> Microformats, which would require me to lobby with Yahoo! (and every
> other toolmaker) to recognize this or that Microformat candidate I dream
> up.
> 
> Do I have that right?

Yes, absolutely correct.

-- manu

PS: I'm working on a full XHTML+RDFa markup example for Digg (SIOC,
    FOAF, DC, etc.) - but it's being slowed down by other fires at the
    moment. :)

-- 
Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.0 Website Launches
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2008/07/03/bitmunk-3-website-launches
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2008 16:55:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 September 2008 16:55:52 GMT