There have been several threads discussing Microformats, RDFa and HTML5 that are occurring on the WHATWG mailing list. The discussion relates to whether or not HTML5 should depend on the Microformats community to solve HTML5's semantic markup issues, or if both Microformats and RDFa should be considered for semantic web markup issues.
The start of the discussion is here: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015860.html and continues here: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015875.html I have authored a blog reply, stating that HTML5 should not depend on the Microformats community to develop all semantic web vocabularies, the reasoning can be viewed here: http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2008/08/23/html5-rdfa-and-microformats/ and my first response to the WHATWG mailing list http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015949.html Things start getting dicey here: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015892.html and here: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015950.html and my second response to the WHATWG mailing list, outlining some of the shortcomings of Microformats and stating what differentiates RDFa in it's approach: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-August/015957.html Posting to this list because there are many on here that would be interested in the WHATWG's current position on web semantics: "not important enough to consider as part of the HTML language". Note that the XHTML1.1 and XHTML2 workgroups have already accepted the position that: "web semantics are important and a standard method of semantics expression is necessary for the future development of the web". -- manu _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss