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

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

From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:19:53 +0000
Message-ID: <4B1E2849.4080001@weborganics.co.uk>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>   
>>> [...] the microdata processing model makes certain assumptions about 
>>> the vocabulary. For SVG to reuse itemscope=""/itemprop=""/etc, the 
>>> processing model would have to be rewritten to define how it works in 
>>> SVG,
>>>       
>> Hmm I don't know if that is an accurate assertion...
>>
>> .."The semantics of the RDFa attributes are the same as for XHTML"...
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/12/rdfa_and_svg_tiny_and_the_rdfa.html
>>
>> There are differences but not much ;)
>>     
>
> RDFa is language-neutral by design. Microdata is language-specific by 
> design. It's a pretty major difference (and is the source of some of 
> microdata's benefits over RDFa), and it is highly relevant here. One could 
> not simply say "the semantics of microdata attributes are the same as for 
> XHTML", that just wouldn't work.
>   

Ahh right I take it back then :)

Splitting microdata from the main HTML5 spec *is* a good thing then, It 
would allow microdata to become language-neutral, and more modular, 
allowing people to use and develop microdata for their own specs and not 
worry too much about the effects, constraints or changes in HTML.

Best wishes

-- 
Martin McEvoy

WebOrganics http://weborganics.co.uk/
Add to address book: http://transformr.co.uk/hcard/http://weborganics.co.uk/
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 10:20:18 UTC

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