W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 12:13:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9EDFDC.8080005@gmx.de>
To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 07.04.2011 23:58, Kurt Cagle wrote:
> ...
> 2) Google produces RDFa output in a number of different contexts, and in
> general does it right. This is also true of Wikipedia (and its
> associated Freebase and DBPedia systems) and a number of news
> organizations, of which the New York Times and Reuters are both useful
> examples.  Basing standardization of RDFa usage on one platform
> (Facebook) seems to be a questionable precedent to use, even if it
> reflects the CURRENTLY largest provider. There are indications that RDFa
> interest is growing dramatically among larger commercial content
> providers, which usually also indicates that the number of organizations
> that ARE using RDFa correctly are also likely to be growing.
> ...

Absolutely. If Facebook doesn't do it right, let's raise bug reports.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 10:14:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:36 UTC