- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:00:02 +0300
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Oct 15, 2009, at 16:39, Shelley Powers wrote: > The HTML+RDFa folks have voluntarily put this specification into a > separate document, so it doesn't increase the size of the HTML5 > spec--that people don't have to wade through the spec, just to find > out how to use the basic HTML markup. The size of the HTML5 spec doesn't bother me. > Henri, I don't remember you ever having an interest in metadata. In > fact, I've always had the impression from you that you think it's > over rated. Indeed. Working on metadata at the National Archives Service (of Finland) made me a non-believer. Subsequently elsewhere, I was assigned to a death march metadata project, which was like a caricature of overmodeling the domain without asking if the benefit of the meticulous metadata was ever going to justify the cost of developing the system let alone getting people to input the metadata. I can see the same pattern in Semantic Web evangelism from time to time. > Forget RDFa for the moment: what is it about Microdata that's > important to you, personally? I can see that there's demand for addressing the use cases that Microdata and RDFa address even though those use cases aren't my primary interest. I care about what's good for the Web and how solutions impact software that I work on. When I see that the use cases are going to be addressed even if addressing them isn't what I'd personally focus on, I prefer them to be addressed in a way that's better for the Web and doesn't have an adverse impact on the software I work on. Microdata addresses the concerns I've raised about Microformats and RDFa over the years. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 07:00:40 UTC