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 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:04 UTC