[uf-discuss] HTML5, Microformats and RDFa
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
Re: [uf-discuss] hcard: born and died and flourished
Hello Jim Jim O'Donnell wrote: Hi Michael, On 21 Aug 2008, at 13:28, Michael Smethurst wrote: Where either date is circa I've included ca. in the span with bday, dday, flourished-start or flourished-end: ca. 1575-ca. 1614 You could represent fuzzy dates as two timestamps seperated by a slash, as per http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/pns/pndsdcap/#DctermsTemporalPndstermsISO8601Per eg. ca. 1575 could be written as 1570-01-01/1580-12-31 or you might be able to just get away wth 1570/1580. I'm not quite sure how you'd represent that in HTML, but it is a standard for representing periods of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Time_intervals says that as well as using slash "/" and solidus (like a slash but steeper don't think its on a standard key on a keyboard) you can also use double dashes "--" so possible mark-up could be: 1575--title="1614-12-31">1614 No there is no @class=interval just a bit of "posh" Best Wishes Martin McEvoy Oh, and I suppose with dates that far back there'll be calendar issues with Julian vs. Gregorian and what day does the year begin if you get into days and months and comparing dates from different parts of Europe. I have to admit I generally ignore those since the uncertainty in dates for works of art and the like is usually much bigger than any difference introduced by different calendars. Jim Jim O'Donnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://eatyourgreens.org.uk http://flickr.com/photos/eatyourgreens ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
