Martin McEvoy wrote: >> http://halindrome.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-we-do-what-we-do.html >> > Thanks Manu for an interesting post, I have made some comments ;-) > I am a bit worried about Shane's other post > >> Shane wrote: >> Unlike microformats, the idiom for annotating your content does not >> conflict with the normal semantics of (X)HTML (e.g., the class >> attribute, the title attribute, and abbr). > > Sound's like a declaration of war from a community who wants to bring > Microformats to the fold.
I've been working with Shane to get this "Microformats expression using RDFa" mechanism operational. I can assure you that his statements are absolutely not any sort of "declaration of war". Please refrain from using loaded language - it mis-characterizes and over-dramatizes his post. We're not talking about a terrible conflict involving loss of life. We're talking about a difference in opinion regarding web semantics expression - it's really geeky stuff. :) Shane has spent the most amount of time out of all of us in the RDFa and Microformats communities writing up our thoughts on Microformats expression using RDFa: http://rdfa.info/wiki/RDFa_Vocabularies He wouldn't be doing that if he wanted to harm this community in any way. We're trying to bring the two communities together - not push them apart. >> Why would you want to use RDFa? For the same reason you want to use >> microformats. Because you care about machines understanding what is on >> your page, not just humans. > > Is it not the other way around in the microformats community? As Sarven stated, the RDFa community and the Microformats community goals are the same - to enable widespread use of semantics in web documents. While the paths that both communities have taken are different, the destination is the same. -- manu _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss