[uf-discuss] Microformats and RDFa not as far apart as previously thought

[Frances Berriman]

On 24/06/2008, Manu Sporny <msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

Hey Manu,

Thanks for the links.  I'm trying to keep track of all the
converastions popping up around this.

>
>  Some are moving too quickly to dismiss both Microformats AND RDFa - the
>  two communities are cross-pollinating and there has been significant
>  lessons learned from both approaches. If you're going to blog about this
>  or discuss it - please don't fuel the Microformats vs. RDFa fire by
>  picking sides... it's detrimental to both communities.

Agreed. I'm so tired of this verses debate.  This isn't a war where
anyone has to pick a side. They can work along side one another.

>  Like Edd stated in his post, we have a bug that we need to fix (abbr
>  design pattern causing screen reader usability issues) and that has been
>  hanging over our heads for some time now. BBC's decision is a lesson
>  learned but is in no way some sort of sign that Microformats is on it's
>  way out.

I don't know if you saw, but the discussion is happening over on dev
[1] (mostly to get parser writer's feedback in the first instance) on
how to deal with the abbr.  There's been work by Ben Ward on the
machine-data[2] options for a while now.

I agree, this is just *one* issue that we've failed to solve so far.

[1] http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-dev/2008-June/000552.html
[2] http://microformats.org/wiki/machine-data



-- 
Frances Berriman
http://fberriman.com