- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 20:55:20 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Ben Adida wrote: > > > > Talking specifically about a "RDFa in HTML" draft, I don't see how > > anybody can take a position that microdata is in scope for the HTML WG > > and RDFa in HTML is not. > > Well, Henri did just that in his blog post, and Ian clearly thinks that. It isn't microdata or RDFa that are in scope for HTML, it's the use cases that they solve. I agree that there are use cases that both RDFa and microdata address that are in scope for HTML, so insofar as that goes, RDFa and microdata are both in scope for HTML. It's just that RDFa, as designed, has problems that IMHO must be resolved before it would be appropriate for HTML; microdata is basically RDFa with those problems resolved. (Naturally, in designing microdata, other design features that may have been the result of requirements for RDFa were not addressed; for example, microdata doesn't support giving types to values. I designed microdata based on the use cases that were provided, and nothing else.) > Therein lies the problem. We want to work on RDFa and address real use > cases without being dependent on Ian. Which use cases does microdata not address? (There are lots of use cases that were put forward as reasons for RDFa that RDFa doesn't address, e.g. it doesn't hook into the drag-and-drop model to support dragging contact information from an (X)HTML page to an OS address book program.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 20:55:56 UTC