[uf-discuss] Today, Tomorrow, and Someday Problems
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Thu Sep 4 18:41:35 PDT 2008
Martin, Manu, a brief bit of history. I left the W3C HTML WG and gave up on XHTML2 because I realized it was not "tomorrow" work, but rather "someday" work, or maybe even "never" work, became increasingly frustrated that the HTML WG as a whole ignored their necessary "today/tomorrow" work , and eventually decided that it was time that someone started to experiment with the broad semantic HTML *today* work being done by modern web designers, solving today's real world web problems, with shared vocabularies based on existing standards. I met up with Kevin Marks who had similar ideas and microformats was started.
That was years ago (2003-2004). In the meantime, microformats adoption has taken off much faster than any of us could have hoped for, while XHTML2 is largely ignored. XHTML2 wasn't a "tomorrow" technology 5 years ago , and it still isn't today. You could say there may be some bitterness/resentment/jealousy/denial about that.
Anyway, I'm largely ignoring it, as I'm trying to do my best to ignore the "microformats vs RDFa" baiting / artificial-dichotomy that so many have pursued. We have too much productive work to do to be distracted by such drama.
From: Martin McEvoy <martin at weborganics.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:47:54
To: Microformats Discuss<microformats-discuss at microformats.org>
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Today, Tomorrow, and Someday Problems
Manu Sporny wrote:
> Interesting blog post by Shane McCarron of XHTML2 fame. He has been
> involved in the standards community since 1985. His name is on just
> about every major HTML standard to come out of the W3C - if you use HTML
> 4.01, XHTML1.0, XHTML 1.1, or will use XHTML2 (to name a few), you're
> using specs that he had a direct hand in creating or maintaining.
> It's interesting to see his take on how the W3C and the Microformats
> community fits into the ecosystem of solving the problems of today,
> tomorrow and "someday". The post discusses Microformats and RDFa:
Thanks Manu for an interesting post, I have made some comments ;-)
I am a bit worried about Shane's other post,
> Unlike microformats, the idiom for annotating your content does not
> conflict with the normal semantics of (X)HTML (e.g., the class
> attribute, the title attribute, and abbr).
Sound's like a declaration of war from a community who wants to bring
Microformats to the fold.
> Why would you want to use RDFa? For the same reason you want to use
> microformats. Because you care about machines understanding what is on
> your page, not just humans.
Is it not the other way around in the microformats community?
> -- manu
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss