Hey Scott, thanks for your reply.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Scott Reynen <sc...@randomchaos.com> wrote: > Microformats aim to "solve a specific problem." Microdata aims to be > compatible with RDF, which demands more generic semantics. Because of this, > I doubt you'll ever see something like n optimization in microdata. You've > suggested that's a good thing because n optimization doesn't make sense in > all cases, but that's the crux of it: microformats aren't trying to make > sense in all cases, while microdata is. n optimization isn't a good thing or > a bad thing; it's simply a reflection of different goals. I disagree. The purpose of microdata is to “annotate content with specific machine-readable labels, e.g. to allow generic scripts to provide services that are customised to the page”. This is also a pretty good description of how @class is used in microformats, and I think that’s a good metaphor. I think you should be comparing microformats with microdata *vocabularies*, which also aim to solve a specific problem. Microdata is just a method by which to do this. While it’s possible to convert microdata into RDFa (along with JSON and Atom), compatibility with RDF is not the aim of microdata — if anything it seems to be “provide a simple mechanism to semantically extend HTML5 to keep ppl who think this is important happy” :) The n optimisation was actually in the microdata vcard spec, but Hixie removed it after deciding it was “magic”. While I can understand the reasons, I think it’d be less confusing/easier if the vcard vocabulary either removed all reference to hcard (e.g. used a non-microformats.org itemtype URL), or mapped hCard exactly. I’m hoping that once hCard 1.0.1 is finished one or both of these things might happen. As for using microdata, if you’re using simple microformats (just fn+url hcards for example) maybe it is too wordy a method. But personally I generally can’t use that optimisation (for example: http://www.cie.mie-u.ac.jp/en/tri-u/2006/committee.html ), so I’m interested in microdata vocabularies for microformats, or the generic way of representing microformats in microdata that Tantek mentioned a year ago. > Maybe you could clarify what specifically you see as negativity toward > microdata? maybe I’m just reading too much into it after talking about microformats and microdata with RDF ppl :D peace - oli _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
