[uf-discuss] re: HTML5 support

Scott Reynen scott at randomchaos.com
Sun Jul 18 09:10:37 PDT 2010

On Jul 18, 2010, at 6:38 AM, Oli Studholme wrote:

>> I'd suggest removing the entire vocabulary-specific section altogether.  As mentioned in the same page, microdata is aiming to solve a different problem than microformats, so it's misleading to suggest specific vocabularies are actually alternatives to specific microformats by talking about them vis-a-vis microformats.
> I’m sorry, but what text are you referring to?

This is what I'm referring to as the "vocabulary-specific section":


This is what I'm referring to as "mentioned in the same page, microdata is aiming to solve a different problem":


> Out of curiosity what do you perceive are the different problems that
> microformats and microdata are trying to solve?

Microformats aim to "solve a specific problem."  Microdata aims to be compatible with RDF, which demands more generic semantics.  Because of this, I doubt you'll ever see something like n optimization in microdata.  You've suggested that's a good thing because n optimization doesn't make sense in all cases, but that's the crux of it: microformats aren't trying to make sense in all cases, while microdata is.  n optimization isn't a good thing or a bad thing; it's simply a reflection of different goals.

> I personally see microformats as a grass-roots movement that uses the
> tools available to extend HTML with extra semantics. Currently this is
> accomplished using @class, @rel etc. I see microdata as a new tool in
> HTML5 that would also be suitable for using with microformats, so I’m
> wondering what’s up with all the negativity directed toward microdata
> in these replies.

Maybe you could clarify what specifically you see as negativity toward microdata?  I don't see microdata and microformats having different goals as a bad thing for either.  Different goals are good.


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list