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 22:40:08 +0100
Message-ID: <4B1981B8.2090406@depulz.nl>
To: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote:
> That's fair.
>
> I just would really like to see some argument about Microdata that
> wasn't related to RDFa.
My 10 arguments in favor of microdata :

1) Simple, flexible and solid tech (small spec, solid pattern, no 
"over-ruling" )
2) Attributes are clear and unambiguous (which authors can safely assume 
are related and will recognize instantly (itemxxx=""))
3) Minor mixing with existing attributes, the ones that get re-used are 
pretty obvious (mainly url elements)
4) Processing model is simple (which many authors are familiar with)
5) No-use of CURI and namespaces (which are confusing for many authors)
6) Standalone tech independent of RDF* or any other tech but URI's, 
making it conceptually strong and autonomous
7) Native DOM api for semantic functionality
8) It is in main spec thus more attention and focus
9) Json serialization spec (which is one of the best data interchange 
formats around these days)
10) Simple,"usable" and promising tech will likely get integrated sooner 
by vendors
> I would like to actually see some evidence of
> healthy community support for it, like we see with RDFa and
> Microformats
You can't really expect this, RDFa and Microformats are around much longer.

These are my personal arguments after researching, reading and 
markup-testing both RDFa and Microdata.

-tim

* RDF imo is not a simple technology for most authors
Received on Saturday, 5 December 2009 14:29:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:54 UTC