Re: ISSUE-76: Need feedback on splitting Microdata into separate specification

Tim van Oostrom, Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:38:07 +0100:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Philip Jägenstedt, Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:36:45 +0100:
>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:19:43 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak:
>>>> On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:21 PM, James Graham wrote:
>>>>       
>>> I doubt however that there are very many (any?) individuals who see 
>>> the two as equally good choices.
>> 
>> RDFa is mature and implemented. Even if microdata technically was as 
>> good as RDFa, it wouldn't automatically be a equally good choice.
>>   
> It all depends on the context. But if the w3c wants the 'web of 
> linked data' to succeed at a faster pace they should go for a simple 
> technology which is part of a primary spec such as HTML5.
> I'd rather use simple, less time consuming, technology than complex, 
> more time consuming, technology. Designers,Developers,Webmasters and 
> teachers will probably make that same choice.
> 
> The success of linked-data is all about widespread usage of annotated 
> data in projects authored by *people of all skill-levels*. If you 
> think about that, which technology suits best ?

That's a hypothetical question which would require lots of effort to 
answer. A legitimate question _now_ is why W3C should sanction yet 
another way to do the same thing - who would that help? Thus we should 
at least not put it in the spec.

I don't think it is hypothetical that some probably find microdata and 
RDFa roughly equally good _technology_. However, in the situation we 
are, then microdata needs to be technically better than RDFa in order 
to be a equally good _choice_. And _much_ better in order to be a 
better choice. But even if we could agree that it is much better, it 
would still be a question whether it should be in the spec.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 19:00:24 UTC