Re: [uf-discuss] Today, Tomorrow, and Someday Problems
Sarven Capadisli wrote: On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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? I don't think so. Both are essentially saying humans indeed do come first but we also want to help the machines understand a bit of what humans do. I think neither of them cancel out the need for the other. OK you are right ...erm no you are wrong!...oh! I would write the same statement (with my microformats hat on): "... Because you care about Humans understanding what is on your page, not just machines." Best Wishes Martin McEvoy -Sarven ___ 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
Re: [uf-discuss] Today, Tomorrow, and Someday Problems
Tantek Celik wrote: > eventually decided that it was time that someone started to experiment > with the broad semantic HTML *today* work being done by modern web > designers, solving today's real world web problems, with shared > vocabularies based on existing standards. I met up with Kevin Marks > who had similar ideas and microformats was started. That being said, I owe a great debt to this community and the people that started it and continue to contribute, including you and the other uF founders, because it is here that I first saw that the semantic web was achievable in the near term. With over a 1,900 directly involved in this community, it is clear that the idea behind Microformats is something that resonates with us! The issue I had was with the execution of Microformats - most notably, the process and the parsing rules. It was only after hAudio ground to a halt (the second time) due to the many arguments revolving around the decision to not use "TITLE", pseudo-namespacing, scoping, accessibility, etc., that I followed up with the W3C as I became increasingly frustrated with the process. Our start-up had a problem to solve (mark-up of audio on web pages) and we wanted to do it right, through a standards body of some kind, instead of forcing our view on the world. We were determined to start an initiative to make the W3C take semantics in HTML more seriously. To our surprise, we found the RDFa Task Force who were doing just that. > That was years ago (2003-2004). In the meantime, microformats > adoption has taken off much faster than any of us could have > hoped for, while XHTML2 is largely ignored. XHTML2 wasn't a > "tomorrow" technology 5 years ago [1], and it still isn't > today. > You could say there may be some > bitterness/resentment/jealousy/denial about that. I joined the W3C as someone who was bitter about many of the standards that had passed the process. The nastiest scar that we held was a system-wide implementation of SOAP as our messaging protocol only to find out that the entire protocol was horrifically over-engineered. "It came from the W3C, it must be good", we thought. Similarly, we had issues with HTML 4.01 and a variety of other W3C technologies throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s. I don't take a strong position on XHTML2 or HTML5 because I have learned enough to know that there are too many people that want too many things out of both technologies to say that either standard is "good" or "bad", or solving today/tomorrow/someday problems. Everybody has different priorities and depending on one technology to solve all of our problems is never the answer. It's going to be a mix (HTML5, XHTML2, Javascript, Microformats, RDFa, etc.) like it has always been on the web. > Anyway, I'm largely ignoring it, as I'm trying to do my best > to ignore the "microformats vs RDFa" baiting / > artificial-dichotomy that so many have pursued. We have > too much productive work to do to be distracted by such drama. Agreed. There is too much work to be done and that getting involved in the perceived drama is distracting. When I hear someone talk about the "drama" between XHTML2 and HTML5, or Microformats and RDFa, it is usually in the form of false perceptions that one community has about the other. This is interesting because it breaks down into two categories: - People that think there is drama due to false perceptions on the positions that the other community holds. "The RDFa community is waging war on the Microformats community - I read about it in a blog post", or "The Microformats community thinks RDFa is just a repeat of RDF/XML." - People that have been burned by one community or the other in the past, usually during a design argument, which clouds their desire to work with the community ever again. So rather than actual drama, we have perceived drama because the communities aren't talking. We are letting false perceptions or negative experiences that we have had in the past cloud our ability to work with each other. This isn't directed at you, Tantek, as I know you strive to make your reasoning and thinking as fair and logical as possible. It's directed more at the general community (both RDFa and Microformats). There are a number of very good thinkers in each community and it is a shame that they continue to be separated because of false perceptions and clouded judgement. -- manu ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Today, Tomorrow, and Someday Problems
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
Re: [uf-discuss] Today, Tomorrow, and Someday Problems
Martin, Manu, a brief bit of history. I left the W3C HTML WG and gave up on XHTML2 because I realized it was not "tomorrow" work, but rather "someday" work, or maybe even "never" work, became increasingly frustrated that the HTML WG as a whole ignored their necessary "today/tomorrow" work [1], and eventually decided that it was time that someone started to experiment with the broad semantic HTML *today* work being done by modern web designers, solving today's real world web problems, with shared vocabularies based on existing standards. I met up with Kevin Marks who had similar ideas and microformats was started. That was years ago (2003-2004). In the meantime, microformats adoption has taken off much faster than any of us could have hoped for, while XHTML2 is largely ignored. XHTML2 wasn't a "tomorrow" technology 5 years ago [1], and it still isn't today. You could say there may be some bitterness/resentment/jealousy/denial about that. Anyway, I'm largely ignoring it, as I'm trying to do my best to ignore the "microformats vs RDFa" baiting / artificial-dichotomy that so many have pursued. We have too much productive work to do to be distracted by such drama. Thanks, Tantek [1] http://tantek.com/log/2003/01.html#L20030114 -Original Message- From: Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:47:54 To: Microformats Discuss Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Today, Tomorrow, and Someday Problems Manu Sporny wrote: > Interesting blog post by Shane McCarron of XHTML2 fame. He has been > involved in the standards community since 1985. His name is on just > about every major HTML standard to come out of the W3C - if you use HTML > 4.01, XHTML1.0, XHTML 1.1, or will use XHTML2 (to name a few), you're > using specs that he had a direct hand in creating or maintaining. > > It's interesting to see his take on how the W3C and the Microformats > community fits into the ecosystem of solving the problems of today, > tomorrow and "someday". The post discusses Microformats and RDFa: > > 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, http://halindrome.blogspot.com/2008/09/rdfa-is-proposed-recommendation.html > 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. > 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? Best Wishes Martin McEvoy > -- manu > > ___ > 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 ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Today, Tomorrow, and Someday Problems
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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? I don't think so. Both are essentially saying humans indeed do come first but we also want to help the machines understand a bit of what humans do. I think neither of them cancel out the need for the other. -Sarven ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Today, Tomorrow, and Someday Problems
Manu Sporny wrote: Interesting blog post by Shane McCarron of XHTML2 fame. He has been involved in the standards community since 1985. His name is on just about every major HTML standard to come out of the W3C - if you use HTML 4.01, XHTML1.0, XHTML 1.1, or will use XHTML2 (to name a few), you're using specs that he had a direct hand in creating or maintaining. It's interesting to see his take on how the W3C and the Microformats community fits into the ecosystem of solving the problems of today, tomorrow and "someday". The post discusses Microformats and RDFa: 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, http://halindrome.blogspot.com/2008/09/rdfa-is-proposed-recommendation.html 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. 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? Best Wishes Martin McEvoy -- manu ___ 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
[uf-discuss] Today, Tomorrow, and Someday Problems
Interesting blog post by Shane McCarron of XHTML2 fame. He has been involved in the standards community since 1985. His name is on just about every major HTML standard to come out of the W3C - if you use HTML 4.01, XHTML1.0, XHTML 1.1, or will use XHTML2 (to name a few), you're using specs that he had a direct hand in creating or maintaining. It's interesting to see his take on how the W3C and the Microformats community fits into the ecosystem of solving the problems of today, tomorrow and "someday". The post discusses Microformats and RDFa: http://halindrome.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-we-do-what-we-do.html -- manu ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
