W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > September 2011

RE: "Microformats, Microdata, and RDFa" - attn: Jeff and Peter!

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 19:08:48 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590DA2B9EE@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Tom Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>, "public-xg-lld" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Tom,

The last sentence didn't make sense to me, so I reworded it. RDFa can
presumably represent anything that RDF can, so the intention was
probably to accommodate the other options. I whittled it down a bit.
Double check to see if it still seems reasonable:

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevant
_Technologies&diff=6160&oldid=6159

BTW, thanks for all your editorial efforts!

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Baker
> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 6:31 PM
> To: public-xg-lld
> Subject: "Microformats, Microdata, and RDFa" - attn: Jeff and Peter!
> 
> Some clarifications to [1]:
> 
> -- "Schema.org" is the name (not "http://schema.org"). Ditto
> "Schema.RDFS.org."
> 
> Questions:
> 
> -- "Though in principle extensible, the microdata schemas would
require
> a lot of extension..."?
>    Was the more cryptic: "Though _it_ is in principle extensible _it_
> would require..."
> 
> -- Did not understand: "Modulo bugs in the search engines' parsers it
> is even
>    possible to do both in the same web page."  Took this to mean:
> 
>        But for bugs in the search engines' parsers, it should even be
> possible
>        to do both in the same Web page.
> 
> I would appreciate a careful look at the diff [1]...
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1]
>
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Relevan
> t_Technologies&diff=6158&oldid=6157
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 4 September 2011 23:09:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 4 September 2011 23:09:38 GMT