- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:33:29 -0600
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > Question for James and Tab (and whoever else thinks Microdata should be in > because it's a good technology and better than RDFa): > > Let's set aside for the moment your view that Microdata is a better > technical solution than RDFa. Let's assume that we were unable to decide > which of RDFa or Microdata is better, and for whatever reason it's not > possible to make a technology with all of the advantages and none of the > disadvantages of both. Let's also stipulate that we think the use cases they > address are worth addressing. In that case, what would be the right course > of action for the Working Group? Include both in the main spec? Include > neither? Something else? If we honestly can't decide between Technology A and B, and they're both 'good enough', then we should just decide arbitrarily on one or the other. It's silly to support two technologies that overlap nearly exactly in use-cases. As I favor things being in the spec, and Technology A (the proxy for Microdata) is already in the spec, one would presumably just choose that one, as it would require less work than integrating Technology B into the spec. If they didn't overlap in use-cases, then I'd want to include both of them in the spec. But then they wouldn't be in competition in the first place, so shrug. I'm not sure how useful such a theoretical question is, though, when we *can* decide which is better. Actual merit trumps theory every time. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 23:34:11 UTC