- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 21:39:47 +0100
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Aryeh Gregor, Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:19:41 -0500: [...] > With the status quo, anyone who sees serious problems with either > microdata or RDFa has reason to try ignoring it and pushing the > alternative, rather than fixing the problems in the other spec. For > instance, a number of people have criticized RDFa's usability on > various grounds. Rather than making a serious effort to improve > RDFa's usability, they've pretty much all just supported microdata and > hoped RDFa will go away. If microdata were dropped and RDFa > integrated into the main spec, then I would expect to see a lot more > discussion on how to improve RDFa, and conversely. +1 (But it is OK for me if RDFa still is kept outside.) [...] > As far as establishing a level playing ground goes, there is not and > cannot be a level playing ground, because RDFa is much older and > better established. It has the huge advantage of inertia. If both > specs are presented on an equal footing, then many authors will likely > go with RDFa just because they've heard of it or someone else already > supports it -- even if microdata is better. I think you hit the real crux for why one wants it in the spec. > The only way to overcome > this inertia would be to discontinue work on RDFa and declare > microdata the future of metadata embedding in HTML. Then people would > gradually switch, as they'll gradually switch from XHTML1 to HTML5. Exactly: Keeping microdata in, is only the start of "the grand mastersplan". -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 20:40:22 UTC