W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

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

From: Tim van Oostrom <tim@depulz.nl>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:38:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4B18D87F.8010508@depulz.nl>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Philip J├Ągenstedt, 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 ?

- 2cents - tim
Received on Saturday, 5 December 2009 14:29:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:04 UTC