- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:41:55 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
- Cc: RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Elias Torres wrote: > > I'll admit that you're onto something when seeking a hands-down simpler > solution for extensible metadata in HTML5. I wish everyone involved in > this could let the arms down for a little bit and try to come up with a > better solution. Of course, the dream is that such solution wouldn't > totally disregard existing deployments because it can re-use existing > test cases and user behavior. It should also take into account the 'hard > evidence' you have accumulated through yours (and others' experiments) > on what works and what doesn't. However, I think that making something > up new (definitely based on some of your hard evidence, yet not really > tested at least as much as RDFa) is simply not the best solution moving > forward. Note that Microdata was originally based on RDFa. I agree with everything you say above. If anyone has any suggestions on simplifying microdata even further, I'm certainly open to suggestions. > > [reverse DNS identifiers and URIs] > > All of my intro simply to say that it's really confusing when you say stuff > like: "I included both". I think this part is really the crux of the matter. > You should be consistent and suggest something because you have data or real > past user experience to prove it's better and not include "both" to leave > things up to personal taste. For some things -- e.g. identifying Web pages -- URIs are clearly preferable. For others -- e.g. predicates -- shorter strings are IMHO preferable. I don't see a problem with having both. > I thought HTML5 was about not making the mistakes of the past. If you > leave this up to choice, then maybe we need RDFa AND Microdata in HTML5 > so people can choose, but obviously I believe that would be mistake > (without even thinking of which one is right or better). We _do_ have RDFa and Microdata, and people _can_ chose. I don't see a problem with this. > I've been watching all of this prefix discussion around RDFa hoping to > see an improvement on CURIE, but nothing jumps out yet. One obvious > choice is not to have them at all and keep identifiers small. That's my preferred solution also. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 23:42:31 UTC