[uf-new] RFC: hAudio RDFa specification

Brian Suda brian.suda at gmail.com
Wed Jul 25 14:21:48 PDT 2007

On 7/25/07, Manu Sporny <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> There are several goals in mapping hAudio Microformats to RDFa[1]:
> 1. Provide an alternative mark-up for the semantic vocabulary generated
>    via the Microformats process.

--- this is one of the things that microformats wants to prevent...
there is no need to have multiple ways of doing the same thing 10
different ways. If something is working then there is no need to
replicate it, confuse people, and create potential drift... it is best
to keep it simple.

> 2. Do what we say in the Microformats Copyright Statement:
>    "the authors intend to submit this specification to a standards
>    body". As far as I know, no Microformat has been put through the
>    W3C process yet, has it?

--- this is correct, but the W3C is not the only potential standard's body.

> 3. Directly address the uF name spacing and scoping issues that some in
>    the uF community have raised concerns about.

--- if this is an issue and you intend to solve this through the use
of a different encoding practice (RDFa), then you will not be able to
keep the microformats and the RDFa in sync. Why duplicate the work?

> 4. Get wider approval for hAudio than just the Microformats community.
>    Specifically, the W3C and Creative Commons.

--- i would worry less about other standard body and be more concerned
with publishers. Others standards bodies are motivated by their
corporate sponsers... microformats on the other hand, are motivated by
publishers. If you want formats to be taken-up then i would focus on
the publishers and not standard's bodies.


brian suda

More information about the microformats-new mailing list