W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > January 2007

Re: Microformats vs RDFa

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:18:59 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0701260418j6d3a298fia058de86796fbe8a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Paul Walsh, Segala" <paulwalsh@segala.com>
Cc: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Susie Stephens" <susie.stephens@oracle.com>, "Kjetil Kjernsmo" <kjetilk@opera.com>, public-sweo-ig@w3.org
On 26/01/07, Paul Walsh, Segala <paulwalsh@segala.com> wrote:
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> [PW] couldn't have put it better myself. You'll see from Sam's blog that
> it's plastered with Microformats. Why doesn't everyone on this list vote
> RDFa <g>
>
Heh, I already did. Though truth be told I'm rather on the fence when it
comes to RDFa because of the current ties to XHTML 2.0 (and QNames in
attributes are ugly). On the other hand, browsers & a lot of people already
support microformats as HTML and they can express perfectly good RDF given
GRDDL (and eRDF, if need be). But I've been assured by people who's opinion
I trust that RDFa is a Good Thing, so I try not to quibble ;-)

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Friday, 26 January 2007 12:19:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:35 GMT