- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 13:45:17 -0600
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Shelley Powers wrote: > >> >> That's fair. >> >> I just would really like to see some argument about Microdata that >> wasn't related to RDFa. I would like to actually see some evidence of >> healthy community support for it, like we see with RDFa and >> Microformats. >> >> If the only reason it exists is because folks don't like RDFa, I think >> the important point to remember is that the existence, or not, of >> Microdata will not generally influence what happens with RDFa. > > It looks to me like Tab's Change Proposal to keep Microdata has six major > points in the Rationale section, only one of which cites RDFa. It is fair > game, of course, to question the strength of that point or of any of the > five other points. > OK dokee, if people only want to talk about microdata in the context of RDFa, I won't protest. I think it really undermines the credibility of Microdata, but that's just one's person's opinion. > (For comparison, Manu's Change Proposal to split Microdata has seven points, > six of which cite RDFa.) > Yup, you're right. > Regards, > Maciej > > Shelley
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 19:45:50 UTC