- From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:19:53 +0000
- 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