I don't suppose that the members of this list appreciate the epic
Microdata vs. RDFa battle leaking into this mailing list, but I want
to address a few inaccuracies below.
Introduction: I work for Opera Software and have been active in the
WHATWG and W3C HTML WG devloping HTML5 for the last year
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
I don't suppose that the members of this list appreciate the epic
Microdata vs. RDFa battle leaking into this mailing list
I wouldn't use such terms to frame the debate. The Microformats,
Microdata and RDFa communities are not battling or working against
each other -
2010/1/16 Manu Sporny mspo...@digitalbazaar.com:
I don't know if you intended the tone of
your e-mail in the way that I read it, but it came off as purposefully
misleading based on the discussions that both you and I have had as
members of the HTMLWG and WHATWG.
[...]
We have a very
Philip wrote:
Certainly, but if wiki editors are *able* to do it by hand, then IMHO
microdata is much less error-prone.
Manu Sporny wrote:
I don't think that the best approach for Wikipedia is to allow direct
Microdata or RDFa markup. There are already many templates in use at
Wikipedia via
2010/1/16 Platonides platoni...@gmail.com:
Both of you seem to think that wikipedia editors would start placing
RDF/Microdata interleaved with wiki markup.
I don't think that could ever happen. The direct markup would be
inserted into infoboxes (which are themselves wikitext, although they
I could see the flames rising at the start of this thread, so thank you both
for steering away from them.
Essentially we have a format war here, in which one or other format will win
and the other will go extinct. It might be being fueled by altruism rather
than capitalism, and that's
Platonides wrote:
Both of you seem to think that wikipedia editors would start placing
RDF/Microdata interleaved with wiki markup.
I don't think that could ever happen. The direct markup would be
inserted into infoboxes (which are themselves wikitext, although they
can get quite complex).
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Manu Sporny mspo...@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
I don't know if you intended the tone of
your e-mail in the way that I read it, but it came off as purposefully
misleading based on the discussions that both you and I have had as
members of the HTMLWG and WHATWG.
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
Microdata is also safe to use for deployment. Like other web
technologies maintained by the WHATWG, it will not change once it's
widely adopted, and Wikipedia adoption would probably count as wide
adoption by
Trying my best to limit length of reply.
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 23:16, Manu Sporny mspo...@digitalbazaar.com wrote:
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
[ed: Microdata] maps well to the
RDF model if you want it, but doesn't force authors to think in terms
of subject, predicate, object triples.
Well,
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Jesse (Pathoschild)
pathosch...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikisource, especially, is in desperate need of metadata. We have some
140,000 pages on the English wiki alone that represent poems,
chapters, tables of contents, and so forth. These are essentially
disorganized:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
What we're talking about (microdata, RDFa, RDF, etc.) is categorically
useless for Wikimedia-internal use. The only use that any of this
metadata stuff has to us is exposing info to *non*-Wikimedia agents.
For
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Jesse (Pathoschild)
pathosch...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, categories and database queries are inadequate for our
needs. Someone can indeed navigate to Categories::Works::Works by
genre::Non-fiction::Governmental::Biographies::Ancient biographies,
and
13 matches
Mail list logo
