Why should RDFa get to mooch of the reputation that microformats has developed over the last 24 months? That reputation was developed by a lot of hard work by a lot of people (and really hard work by a few).
What has RDFa brought to the table? Like microformats, RDFa wants to carry inline machine readable data with human readable data. Beyond this? It models data in a way that no one uses, to solve problems no one has, in a way that no one can find a use for [1][2]. The best part about microformats (IMHO) is not the class and rel and abbr stuff, but the fact that it deliberately constrains itself to real problems that people are actually having. Regards, etc... David [1] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rdf+applications&btnG=Google+Search [2] http://programmableweb.com/apis On 12/6/06, S. Sriram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's right, I think that what RDFa does is hint at realising the potential that microformats (in general) offer (to institutions), which 'microformats.org' with its inherent (and probably valid) limitations stops short of. Maybe, thinking of RDFa as microformats (in general) and microformats.org/microformats as microfortmatted-objects (in particular) might help understand this relationship better.
_______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss