W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > November 2011

Re: how dirty can the HTML be, and still be RDFa?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:59:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+ZUhMNums2sKxDuSjskY5Mz7SLtxjVS=Q-yd3XKTQA_DA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> There is a basic contradiction. RDFa isn't main stream. RDFa will not be
> main stream. The goal of WebID should be mass adoption without syntax level
> distractions.
>
>> That's all the reason there is for the moment: it has all to do with
>> interoperability.
>
> Interoperability with what? Some niche?
>
> HTML+Microdata is aggressively promoted by Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and
> others. It already has far more tools, developers, and supporters than RDFa
> will ever have. Thus, if you want interoperability RDFa specificity is an
> implicit contradiction.

You saw http://blog.schema.org/2011/11/using-rdfa-11-lite-with-schemaorg.html ?

(I have amongst other things a Google contractor hat now, working on schema.org)

Also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2011Nov/0103.html

What I'd rather see now, instead of gigantic mail threads in my inbox,
is a nice tight well-packaged and tested .js library that reads RDFa,
Microdata and sure Microformats2 as well. If half the angst about
'picking the winner' I see here could go into coding a format-agnostic
HTML reader in .js, we'd all be a better place.

RDFa has taken on many of the design considerations that led to the
Microdata fork being preferred for schema.org. It's a mistake to
consider it "out of the game" because schema.org launched with
Microdata instead of RDFa. But RDFa today wouldn't be as good as it
now is, were it not for the existence of Microdata and the
conversation with schema.org about simplification...

Dan
Received on Monday, 28 November 2011 09:00:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 November 2011 09:00:49 GMT