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

RE: Microformats vs RDFa

From: Paul Walsh, Segala <paulwalsh@segala.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:22:17 -0000
To: "'Danny Ayers'" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'Susie Stephens'" <susie.stephens@oracle.com>, "'Kjetil Kjernsmo'" <kjetilk@opera.com>, <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20070126122219.C76DE87D8D1D@postie1.hosting365.ie>

From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny.ayers@gmail.com] 
Sent: 26 January 2007 12:19
To: Paul Walsh, Segala
Cc: Ivan Herman; Susie Stephens; Kjetil Kjernsmo; public-sweo-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Microformats vs RDFa



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 ;-) 


[PW]  I don't like the argument that appears to be forming; Microformats vs
the Semantic Web. Doesn't make sense as it doesn't have to be one or the
other and it doesn't make our job any easier. 


Received on Friday, 26 January 2007 12:22:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:51 UTC