Micky Hulse <mickyhulse.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote: >> As far as microdata, that's sort of a seperate thing. ?Microdata is in flux >> and there are no community-driven vocabularies or formats for it (there are >> some WHATWG-driven and Google-driven formats, but that's hardly a >> community consensus). > > Interesting. > > This seems pretty official: > <http://www.schema.org/> > > But, like you say, it's hardly a community consensus. :( > > Purely from a readability perspective, I like that microdata is not > using CSS classes; on the other hand, I'm not keen about pointing > towards a schema (itemtype=) for every little piece of content on my > page. Clearly there are advantages and disadvantages to both > techniques.
The big thing is that Microdata is supported by W3C, visit: http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/ This means that, in the long term, Microdata will win in the marketplace and microformats will lose. My problem is what to do in the short and medium terms. While it will be possible to deploy both, this would be twice the work for zero additional benefit. Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/ _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
