Re: [uf-new] Microformats for hidden data

2009-11-26 Thread Dan Brickley
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Fiann O'Hagan fia...@jshub.org wrote:
 Hi everyone,

 A little while ago my colleague Liam posted on this list about the
 jsHub project and our ideas for a microformat to replace the
 proprietary JavaScript currently used for web analytics metadata. He
 got some good feedback, and I can see there's work we need to do.

 Here's the use case we want to address: there is a lot of information
 currently stored in pages which is encoded in vendor-specific
 JavaScript variables.
[...]
 Are there any materials currently available about information which is
 not in the visible HTML of the page?
[...]
 But there is a wealth of information hidden within the page in meta
 tags and in JS blocks.

Interesting questions. My take on microformatism is that a big part of
the value has been in encouraging people to look more closely at the
tags available in HTML, at their existing official meaning and at the
possibilities for using them to carry more specific / tightly defined
data structures. You already highlight the existence of meta, and I
guess I'd just draw a stronger contrast between that and proprietary /
random Javascript variables. There's a lot to be said for not having
to run a Javascript interpreter to figure out the basic data
structures encoded in a Web page. So maybe meta is worth some more
investigation, rather than just listing it as part of the problem...?

cheers,

Dan
___
microformats-new mailing list
microformats-new@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new


Re: [uf-new] Blog post on HTML5, Microformats and RDFa

2009-01-24 Thread Dan Brickley

+cc: Mark Birbeck

On 24/1/09 17:04, Manu Sporny wrote:

Mark Birbeck (the lead technical mind behind RDFa) has written an
interesting piece about HTML5, Microformats and RDFa. In the piece, he
explores distributed semantics extension (RDFa/XHTML2) vs. centralized
semantics extension (uF/HTML5). It's an interesting post because it
outlines the two philosophies at play and how they're affecting the
next-generation of web semantics.

http://webbackplane.com/mark-birbeck/blog/2009/01/rdfa-means-extensibility

No surprises in his conclusion (he thinks RDFa is the way forward)...
worth a read, even for the die-hard uFers, as several interesting points
are made along the way.


While there is some some interesting history in there, and plenty of 
design observations that I agree with, it's not a very helpful post, in 
terms of communication between diverse communities.


	The WHATWG for example are pursuing a much more monolithic approach 
with HTML5; they see no need for extension points, since the language 
itself will cover everything.


	The Microformats approach is also counter to the idea of 'extension 
points' that are open to anyone, since it, too, attempts to centrally 
control the creation of new formats, stifling the evolution of new 
vocabularies by specialists within their sectors.


I fail to see how presenting microformat and HTML5 enthusiasts as 
control freaks is going to help anything. I know from talking with 
various developers from the WHATWG and Microformats scene that they 
simply don't see things this way.


I can see why Mark might think this, but it's an needlessly provocative 
way of phrasing things. HTMLVery binary, them-and-us thinking, at a time 
when many RDF people are also working with microformat parsers, and 
many microformat people are also busy with RDFa, SPARQL, GRDDL and so 
on. It's also in a week when http://validator.nu/ acquired an 
experimental HTML5+RDFa parser for a no-namespaces/CURIEs subset of 
RDFa. While this might not be what everyone wants, that's the nature of 
compromise and collaboration. What we need right now is a sincere effort 
from all parties to understand and respect those they're arguing with, 
rather than picking fights and suggesting the worst motives lie behind 
every action.


Mark, can you try to be a teeny bit more empathy-minded when writing 
about other communities' work? RDFa is good enough to stand on its 
strengths.


cheers,

Dan

--
http://danbri.org/
___
microformats-new mailing list
microformats-new@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new