On 25 Aug 2008, at 19:47, Manu Sporny wrote:
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.
I've been out of touch with HTML5 development for a bit, but the way
you describe this paragraph is somewhat alarming.
We, the microformats community, absolutely *should not* be relied on
the fill every gap in HTML. That they would not specify minority
concerns in the HTML language is perfectly understandable, but the
Microformats Community is itself not designed to do that either. This
community, with this development process, is completely inappropriate
for filling every single extended use for HTML that people might have.
HOWEVER, there may just be misinterpretation here. Perhaps rather than
intending to depend on our specific community, the intention is that
the gaps be filled with ‘microformat-like patterns’. Patterns, class-
patterns, ‘posh’… whatever you want to call it. Microformats.org does
not own the class attribute and anyone working on techniques that are
incompatible with our process can do so.
It seems to me the case is not about ‘microformats.org’, but instead
about the capabilities of the class attribute itself. Is it just that
the word ‘microformats’ is being used as a generic catch-all for
semantic class name patterns?
It seems quite reasonable that the HTML working group be considering
the use case of ‘extended semantic description in HTML’ and
considering its existing capabilities (which are proving very capable
in the specific case of microformats), rather than a use case of
‘support RDFa in HTML’, which is just one solution.
I think Scott is correct in that you may need to reframe your
argument. Any push to have RDFa made a part of HTML5 should be focused
on the capabilities of RDFa compared to the class attribute, not the
(often intentional) limitations of one particular user of the class
attribute (us).
Ben
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
