[uf-discuss] re: HTML5 support

[Oli Studholme]

Hey Scott,

thanks for your reply.

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Scott Reynen <scott at randomchaos.com> wrote:

> 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 disagree. The purpose of microdata is to “annotate content with
specific machine-readable labels, e.g. to allow generic scripts to
provide services that are customised to the page”. This is also a
pretty good description of how @class is used in microformats, and I
think that’s a good metaphor. I think you should be comparing
microformats with microdata *vocabularies*, which also aim to solve a
specific problem. Microdata is just a method by which to do this.
While it’s possible to convert microdata into RDFa (along with JSON
and Atom), compatibility with RDF is not the aim of microdata — if
anything it seems to be “provide a simple mechanism to semantically
extend HTML5 to keep ppl who think this is important happy” :)

The n optimisation was actually in the microdata vcard spec, but Hixie
removed it after deciding it was “magic”. While I can understand the
reasons, I think it’d be less confusing/easier if the vcard vocabulary
either removed all reference to hcard (e.g. used a
non-microformats.org itemtype URL), or mapped hCard exactly. I’m
hoping that once hCard 1.0.1 is finished one or both of these things
might happen.

As for using microdata, if you’re using simple microformats (just
fn+url hcards for example) maybe it is too wordy a method. But
personally I generally can’t use that optimisation (for example:
http://www.cie.mie-u.ac.jp/en/tri-u/2006/committee.html ), so I’m
interested in microdata vocabularies for microformats, or the generic
way of representing microformats in microdata that Tantek mentioned a
year ago.

> Maybe you could clarify what specifically you see as negativity toward microdata?

maybe I’m just reading too much into it after talking about
microformats and microdata with RDF ppl :D

peace - oli