- From: Tim van Oostrom <tim@depulz.nl>
- Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:40:08 +0100
- 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