[uf-discuss] Today, Tomorrow, and Someday Problems
msporny at digitalbazaar.com
Thu Sep 4 23:38:22 PDT 2008
Martin McEvoy wrote:
> Thanks Manu for an interesting post, I have made some comments ;-)
> I am a bit worried about Shane's other post
>> Shane wrote:
>> 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.
I've been working with Shane to get this "Microformats expression using
RDFa" mechanism operational. I can assure you that his statements are
absolutely not any sort of "declaration of war". Please refrain from
using loaded language - it mis-characterizes and over-dramatizes his post.
We're not talking about a terrible conflict involving loss of life.
We're talking about a difference in opinion regarding web semantics
expression - it's really geeky stuff. :)
Shane has spent the most amount of time out of all of us in the RDFa and
Microformats communities writing up our thoughts on Microformats
expression using RDFa:
He wouldn't be doing that if he wanted to harm this community in any
way. We're trying to bring the two communities together - not push them
>> 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?
As Sarven stated, the RDFa community and the Microformats community
goals are the same - to enable widespread use of semantics in web
documents. While the paths that both communities have taken are
different, the destination is the same.
More information about the microformats-discuss