On Nov 26, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
As I understand it, these limitations are what led the W3C to create
RDF, which is cross-linked from the meta element in the HTML spec.
And
the complexity of RDF, is of course what led to the rise of
microformats.
This isn't very accurate. RDF was not created primarily as a response
to HTML's limitations, nor microformats as a response to RDF's
complexity. The two only rarely overlap on the same use case. It's
generally pretty clear which tool is more appropriate for a given
job. For example:
Have you considered using RDFa?
I agree, this seems much more in line with RDFa than microformats. To
do this in microformats, we'd need to throw out the visible data
requirement, and re-interpret all of the other guidelines to no longer
presume visible data. And after a lot of work, the result would end
up looking a lot like RDFa.
--
Scott Reynen
MakeDataMakeSense.com
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
microformats-new@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
