It’s just data

Microdata

It is a name I don’t care for, but alas, one that likely will stick.  The concept is to provide explicit support in HTML for embedding metadata in content.  Both Microformats and RDFa do related things.

As is common in distributed development, things haven’t exactly happened in chronological order. 

Ian abstracted out use casesManu participated, Elias seems happy, and Shelley is continuing to review.

Ian analyzed the use cases and committed the changes to the draft HTML5 spec.  This is an unusual approach for standards organizations, but Commit-Then-Review is a common approach at the Apache Software Foundation.

The very next day, Ian made his first change based on review feedback.  Shelley and Ben expressed similar concerns.  I’m not aware of any changes which have been made since (translation: today!), but the day is still young.  Things clearly are starting to move quickly.

Ben’s concerns clearly go beyond that one attribute, and mostly appear to center on overlap with future plans for an HTML serialization of RDFa (the current Recommendation is for XHTML only).  These plans are rapidly being deployed in what is another chronological anomaly.  As to the question of “who got there first” — if that turns out to be the full extent of the concern — then I agree with Jeni: The web will evolve and there is space enough in it for us all.

Philip has implemented the proposal.  His implementation can produce both RDF triples and JSON output.  Shelley is evaluating.  Her effort is the one that I’m watching most closely.  What I am particularly looking for is any sense as to whether or not there are validated benefits to producers for this syntax as contrasted to the alternatives.  The reason for my focus on producers in this case is that I believe that consumers will, by necessity, be scavengers.  At the moment, I’m assuming that both syntaxes are digestible.  If that turns out not to be the case, then all bets are off.

Shelly is now a member of the W3C HTML Working Group (welcome!), and is looking for suggestions.  As for my input: I’d particularly be interested in real live examples (e.g. from Drupal) of where the annotations that one would like to express are more simply, more concisely, or more accurately can be expressed in one syntax or the other.

Ultimately, it should be possible to reduce these results into a set of criteria as to which format is better for any given use case.  If the results turn out overwhelmingly in one direction or the other, hopefully we will converge on the “better” format.  If the results are mixed, I expect that the HTML5 draft will evolve, and hope that an “RDFa in HTML” draft is produced incorporating this feedback.

Just so it is crystal clear: am I happy that there are multiple syntaxes?  Absolutely not.  But I’m equally unhappy (if not more so) with the continued state of there not being an “RDFa in HTML” draft despite the fact that people are clearly deploying it.  And I note that Elias' initial take seems to be along the lines of “microdata is a simpler syntax and addresses the necessary use cases”.  Hopefully Shelley will soon be in a position to confirm or refute that impression with real data, if she isn’t already.

And should it turn out that Microdata does not enjoy consensus, I will ask that it be removed from the W3C draft.


cssquirrel: Thank goodness, there's been a lot of genuine microdata/html5 progress lately: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/05/12/Microdata

cssquirrel: Thank goodness, there’s been a lot of genuine microdata/html5 progress lately: [link]...

Excerpt from Twitter / cssquirrel at

And just about now. Google is announcing that RDFa will be supported in Google Search Engine. Amazing coincidence.

About the proposal about rdfa in html, where is the list of issues of RDFa in html so far? Because in Ian’s email, these are non technical issues.

Posted by karl dubost at

Karl, given the accepted use cases for microdata, I believe that we are beyond the issue mentioned in your third bullet.  Time to move on.  I’ll note in passing that neither microdata nor RDFa effectively enable one to develop the next SVG or MathML, so it falls short of distributed extensibility, and it does so pretty much for the reasons outlined by TV Raman.

As to your first two bullets... what we really need now is a concrete proposal, not hand waves.  If the proposal turns out to be simply a global search and replace of “XHTML” with “HTML” in the current RDFa recommendation, so be it.  If not, it is time to see what the actual proposal is.  I’ve given the same feed back, repeatedly, to Ben and others.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

See also [link] for an example of marking up a page using existing RDF vocabularies. (The RDF output shown on that page is a bit hard to read; the current version of my parser hopefully gives prettier output.) (Also, that site appears to be down now, but I guess it’ll be back soon.)

Posted by Philip Taylor at

submitted by gthank [link] [0 comments]...

Excerpt from web_design: what's new online at

Fair enough.

Given today’s circumstances, it will happen sooner than later.  RDFa and microformats support in Google

Posted by karl dubost at

I have a couple of new use cases from actual work that I can also cover, in addition to the Drupal 7 plans, but I’d also like to see Ian finish up with the ones he has.

As I mentioned in Jeni’s post, the web isn’t necessarily live and let live. Microdata generates RDF-style triples, yes, but it doesn’t support the RDF model. Because of this, there is danger in trying to mix data from both RDFa and microdata.

I also think that Google’s announcement today makes some of this moot. It doesn’t matter what happens with HTML5, RDFa and microformats will not be going away, and their use is about to explode.

There was an effort to come up with a RDFa that would work with HTML, but the last I saw, it was shot down because of the “micodata use case gathering process”. I have to think that if this group is smart enough to build its own metadata process from scratch, it’s smart enough to make whatever minor mods are necessary with RDFa and HTML5 to ensure both work together.

Regardless, I’ve assigned myself a deliverable, but will put at my place, as its multi-page. It will address Ian’s use case reviews, my concerns, new (real world) cases that highlight some challenges, concerns about mixing of data from two different models, and yes, new announcements. I’ll have it by this weekend. Whether it will help or not, I don’t know.

Posted by Shelley at

Shelley, I’m definitely looking forward to it.  Bonus points will be awarded for including Google’s new use cases.  :-)

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Google’s use case, documented over at O’Reilly from what I can see, is an easy use case. Will add as example.

Posted by Shelley at

Interesting. And this seems also very timely:

Google announces support for RDFa ...

Posted by Michael Hausenblas at

I haven’t fully read the spec to even give a percentage of coverage of the use cases and requirements we used for RDFa. But that’s on simply on the rational side of things to say, however, I wouldn’t say I’m happy at all, in fact, it saddens me because Ian’s decision disregards the efforts by the RDFa task force AND the implementors to understand and deploy RDFa is simply showing NIH syndrome to the fullest. We can go back years and see the many times we tried to present a case to Ian, he rejected it over and over, now, he accepts the requirements (he chooses) but decides to invent his own spec. How much interaction has he had with the users to really see if he’s addressing their requirements? I don’t know. I do agree that technically it’s simpler, but it doesn’t mean that it addresses the requirements fully, compatibility with RDFa, or it’s technically better than RDFa.

The RDF-in-xhtml task force set out to do what it was asked to do by the W3C and that is to design the language for XHTML, but over and over, we have showed how it can work almost 100% as-is in HTML5 but are not given the chance to really address whatever the small percentage of incompatibility might be.

Posted by Elias Torres at

Elias: noted.  I tried to carefully scope my comment to indicate that you were happy with the use cases.  I’m sorry if I implied more.

One small point where I disagree with what you said.  re: “are not given the chance”.  I would state that differently, thus: “have not taken the opportunity”.  If your charter is blocking you, fix the charter.  If you can’t do that and can’t find the right WG in the W3C to sponsor this work, produce the draft anyway.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

hmmm, had trouble with my previous posting, so trying again.

Sam, I think you’ve got things a bit wrong regarding data extensibility. RDFa never attempted to provide the “platform extensibility” that TV Raman so nicely described. Rather, RDFa provides distributed extensibility for data. For example, Google was able to launch their own RDF vocabulary, used within their RDFa markup, without consulting anyone and, importantly, without trampling on a top-level namespace (i.e. rel="nofollow"). That’s distributed extensibility for data, enabled by RDFa.

Regarding us “not having taken the opportunity,” a little historical perspective is in order: until HTML5 was brought back into the W3C fold, there was no possible way for us to talk about RDFa in non-XML HTML. Then, Ian didn’t want to hear about RDFa, he didn’t even believe in the basic use cases we had. So there was no point, really. Ian’s recent and sudden interest in embedded structured data is welcome news. His new, NIH, half-baked solution is disappointing.

So, now that you’re working on the HTML5 effort, it would be useful to us if you sent us, maybe via a more official W3C channel, a request for a more complete RDFa in HTML5 proposal. Creative Commons is happy to make this a member submission, but some baseline that an HTML5 editor wants to see this proposal would help.

Posted by Ben Adida at

Some links for light reading (12/5/09)

Windows Mobile Devices to Support Facebook 20+ Wicked Proof of Concepts for Better use of jQuery/CSS CodeBlacks Bet On Beta CMS An Introduction to Concurrent Java Programming HasCanvas Fixed Position and Opacity Filter Bug in Internet Explorer 10...

Excerpt from maxdesign.com.au at

Ben: regarding extensibility: I think what you said is what I meant.  In any case, I agree with it.

Regarding perspective: it is also worth noting that there was a period when Ian and the WHATWG wasn’t listened to by the W3C.  They could have waited for permission, and if they had done so, it is quite possible that they would still be waiting.

Ian is an editor of a number of W3C drafts.  A number of people have expressed desires to produce drafts with different scopes.  I’ve done what I can to support them.  Generally, the follow through has been lacking.

My recommendation to you is to produce a draft.  Feel free to start from Ian’s document (his license permits such usages).  Or feel free to structure it as has been done with the current RDFa in XHTML document.  Once such a document is produced, I will help, whether it be in assessing consensus or in changing charters, or (&deity; forbid) in recommending that an entirely new WG be formed.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

No worries Sam, I just didn’t want to leave room for misunderstandings and thank you for the advice on how to proceed.

Posted by Elias Torres at

Just as a bit of gratuitous self-promotion, I will mention that I made an implementation at the same time as, and independently of, Philip. It doesn’t support RDF output yet, simply because getting that right was as much work as implementing everything else in the proposal. Well that might not be quite true but I’m trying to get the URL processing right at the same time (since apparently URLs are important in RDF!) and that turns out to be rather a lot of work to do correctly.

Anyway, modulo any bugs (including some of the URL stuff which is a known issue) and/or spec changes that I haven’t noticed, my JSON output is compatible with Philip’s. With all the talk about RDF, that doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of play. We now have a proposed standard which allows anyone with a HTML parser to go from no understanding of the spec to a working implementation in an afternoon. Assuming that ease of implementation in this case says something about ease of authouring (and I suspect it does because the reason it is easy to implement is that there are almost no new concepts beyond what you need to know to work with HTML/CSS) the proposal represents an easy-to-author format that can be trivially converted into the interchange format of choice for people building mashups and things.

That seems like a huge deal.

The ease of parsing is something that microformats never offered. The ease of authoring is something that RDFa has never offered (and if you don’t believe that statement, check out the google help page noting the difference between the xmlns decelerations in different places). I think that something that people can use reliably is a much bigger deal than the ability to express every possible RDF concept. It will likely be possible to graft on the missing pieces (data types and XML literals, if I understand correctly) in the future if there is real (not just anticipated) demand for them. Ease of use has to be designed in from the start.

Posted by jgraham at

[from masaka] Microdata [intertwingly]

am I happy that there are multiple syntaxes? Absolutely not. But I’m equally unhappy (if not more so) with the continued state of there not being an “RDFa in HTML” draft despite the fact that people are clearly deploying it - by Sam Ruby, 2009-05-12...

Excerpt from Delicious/network/beefer at

We now have a proposed standard which allows anyone with a HTML parser to go from no understanding of the spec to a working implementation in an afternoon.

Just to corroborate that: I read the spec for the first time while eating breakfast, and then spent about an hour writing the initial working version of a parser and JSON output code. All of the concepts involved seem very straightforward.

(But this doesn’t address the question of whether it’s similarly easy to define new microdata vocabularies (instead of reusing cumbersome URI-based RDF ones) and write the markup and write the application-specific code that processes the JSON output. Hopefully the current parser implementations will let people experiment with those things.)

Posted by Philip Taylor at

bits and bobs

jimmy graham sez: Just as a bit of gratuitous self-promotion, I will mention that I have a huge nob I made an implementation Mr been sez: @samruby who said "first"? ian gave you exactly what you asked for, and now you complain that nothing ever...

Excerpt from Last Week in HTML5 at

@jgraham: ANY example of code that is made without actually running whatever process it is supposed to be used for will have errors. This clearly seems to be the case for these particular examples. Or maybe they took old examples that used to be working but were never updated. I don’t see how it follows from this that RDFa is hard to author.

In fact, I can not see at all how RDFa is hard to author. Documentation provides example, user copies example and fills in the details. If the example has a / at the end of the URI, the user will copy it. If the example is wrong, the user will copy the wrong stuff. If the markup happens not to work properly, user compares the example with what he copy/pasted to see what mistake he made. Simple.

Posted by Laurens Holst at

Sam, you’re putting people into a disadvantage when you keep stressing about “produce a new draft”.

When one person is given the power to actually put a draft into the overall HTML5 ongoing spec, unless the other people are also given that same level of power, they have no way of knowing that their effort will be given the same level of attention and due process.

So when you say, “Produce another draft”, and by this I’m assuming you mean for a specific section of the HTML5 document, it would be outside of reason to demand that people produce an entirely new HTML5 document, will you also ensure that it gets incorporated into the working HTML5 draft? Without previous discussion, as is happening now with one person’s effort?

Posted by Shelley at

In fact, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have another section titled “Incorporating RDFa into HTML5”, alongside of the current “microdata” proposal, to be given the same level of discussion as the microdata proposal — should it be left in, should it be modified, etc. Who knows, perhaps both would end up in HTML5, if the working group concurs.

So what is the process, then, whereby we can ensure a new section is added, as is, into the HTML5 draft? After all, this fits within the group’s CTR process — commit, then review. It’s just that it takes the “commit” part out of one person’s hands.

Posted by Shelley at

Shelley, I’ll give you two answers.  The first describes the general approach, and the second is a concrete example of this approach in action.

I’ll also share some of my experiences.  You might find that some people aren’t overjoyed by the notion of competing specs.  It is up to you as to whether that bothers you.  I’d suggest that you not let it.  That being said, you will find that some of the exact same people will be very helpful in answering your questions and enabling you to exactly that - they will tell you where to find the sources, what tools you need to install, what problems they encountered, and how to solve them.

And one of the best ways to reach these people is via IRC, either on the #whatwg or #html-wg channels.  And if you don’t get an answer immediately, check the the logs in a few hours.

I’ll also tell you up front that my personal criteria which I use to determine if such a document can even come up for a vote by the mailing list is to assess whether or not there are a minimum of three independent people actively contributing to the development of the document.  The terms “independent”, “active” and “contributing” are admittedly a bit vague, and I’m leaving them a bit undefined at the moment, with the promise that we will jointly assess such things when the document is ready.

To date, Rob’s document does not meet that criteria.  Nor does Mike’s.

Finally, and I mean this very seriously: Good Luck!

Posted by Sam Ruby at

“That recourse is forking.”

I have to wonder how many good ideas have been shot down by such a door closing statement.

Posted by Shelley at

My understanding was that you do not need to reproduce the whole spec, but can develop modified or additional sections and have them considered by the HTML working group for inclusion, is this incorrect?

Posted by steve faulkner at

Shelley, I won’t argue with you, but to me that statement exactly matches what you described:

So what is the process, then, whereby we can ensure a new section is added, as is, into the HTML5 draft? After all, this fits within the group’s CTR process — commit, then review. It’s just that it takes the “commit” part out of one person’s hands.

Just so that I’m not confused, what you want to do is add a new section to the existing draft and make the result available for review, right?  If so, I suggest that this is something entirely in your power to do now.  Without waiting for either Ian’s or my permission.

I’ll also note that what I am talking about something Rob was able to do in his spare time on a Sunday afternoon.

If this is something you don’t wish to do, I entirely understand.

Further background on forking.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Steve, that is correct.  However I will be upfront with you: I have not seen an instance where Ian has accepted a section written by another author into his copy.  I will simply note that if it turns out to be the case a section that you or anybody else writes is not something that Ian is interested in incorporating, that does not stop you or anybody else from incorporating the same text into another copy and bringing the result forward.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

My understanding of “forking” differs from yours, then, because I’m not talking about making a copy and modifications “elsewhere”. I’m talking about ensuring that a new section edited by someone else is added into the existing HTML5 document, and given the same level of attention and due consideration as the other sections.

If this fits your definition of “forking” then we agree.

Rob’s work is “elsewhere”. “elsewhere” does not have the same focus. Can we agree that “elsewhere” does not have the same focus, or credibility?

And since the group is CTR, proposing another option in the working groups or the IRCs is following the review first, then commit process, which violates the HTML WG’s current processes. Can we agree that one person having access to the path that the HTML WG supports, which is CTR, puts others who don’t have this same access at a disadvantage?

Steve just wrote, “My understanding was that you do not need to reproduce the whole spec, but can develop modified or additional sections and have them considered by the HTML working group for inclusion, is this incorrect?” The problem though is this follows a review, first, then commit process, which you have said this week is not the process that governs the HTML WG effort.

Posted by Shelley at

Sam Ruby: Microdata

... [more]

Trackback from (mit hacksause)

at

Ian produced a document “elsewhere”, and subsequently met the criteria for a W3C First Public Working Draft.  If you, or anybody else, does likewise, your documents will get equal visibility.

I will also note that I said that the WHATWG is following a CTR process.  Other document editors are welcome to follow a RTC process should they wish to do so.  I’d even go so far as to say that such an approach would be preferred, at least by this co-chair.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

“Ian produced a document “elsewhere”, and subsequently met the criteria for a W3C First Public Working Draft.  If you, or anybody else, does likewise, your documents will get equal visibility.”

Well, you must know that’s not true in a real world. Once an organization commits to one path they are extremely resistant to change the path. It’s actually much easier to get an organization to follow “a path”, than to get it to decide to change paths.

Posted by Shelley at

So just to be clear, you are saying that the only way for something to be added/modified/removed from the HTML5 specification being developed within the W3C HTML working group is by Ian’s hand?

Posted by steve faulkner at

Shelley: I believe I was brought in to address exactly that issue.  If you would like, I’d suggest you check offline with PLH to verify this — he’s the Interaction Domain leader overseeing the HTML WG.  Meanwhile, I’ve obviously not won your confidence yet.  That doesn’t mean that I will stop trying.

Steve: A full answer to that is that there is a specification being developed by the WHATWG that the W3C publishes.  And, yes, to my knowledge the only way to get changes made to that particular editor’s draft is by convincing that particular editor of the merits of doing so.  I’ll add that there is no guarantee that that particular document will make it to Last Call, much less Candidate Recommendation.  And that none of that stops people who wish to do so from producing a document.

To date, I’ve seen zero evidence that there is anybody interested in actually doing the work of producing an editors draft — either completely standalone or one that substantially is based on Ian’s work to date — that describes how one puts RDFa into an HTML document.  Yes, when I say “zero evidence that there is anybody”, the word “anybody” includes Ian.  But I will note that that particular word also includes quite a large number of other people too.

It would seem entirely plausible to me that a spec that includes all aspects of HTML as consumed by the likes of Yahoo! and Google would enjoy greater consensus than one that excluded a noticeable portion of such markup, particularly if such markup turns out to be both popular and useful.  But we may never know, if absolutely nobody is willing to do that work.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Search Engines take on Structured Data

Structured data on the web got a boost this week, with Google’s announcement of Rich Snippets and Rich Snippets in Custom Search. Structured data at such a large scale raises at least three issues:SyntaxVocabularyPolicyGoogle’s documentation shows...

Excerpt from W3C Q&A Weblog at

“A full answer to that is that there is a specification being developed by the WHATWG that the W3C publishes.”

OK so if HTML 5 isn’t being developed by the W3C, what is the w3c html working groups role?

Posted by steve faulkner at

Steve: my goal is to make the W3C HTML WG a place where people (like you) would be able to collaboratively develop a specification on which consensus can be evaluated.  I’ve obviously been failing miserably at that.  I will only add that my failure is in no way Ian’s fault.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Predicting Microformats/RDFa’s Future

I have no comment on this. I just wanted a placeholder to mark the date. From Sam Ruby: Microdata: [Microformats...... [more]

Trackback from Jeremy Smith's blog

at

offered without comment

Shelley Powers sez: In fact, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have another section titled “Incorporating RDFa into HTML5”, alongside of the current “microdata” proposal, to be given the same level of discussion as the microdata proposal —...

Excerpt from Last Week in HTML5 at

Technology Related Links for May 13th

If you are looking to follow this series, be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed at [link]... [more]

Trackback from Jason N. Gaylord's Blog

at

To date, I’ve seen zero evidence that there is anybody interested in actually doing the work of producing an editors draft — either completely standalone or one that substantially is based on Ian’s work to date — that describes how one puts RDFa into an HTML document.  Yes, when I say “zero evidence that there is anybody”, the word “anybody” includes Ian.

Actually I was interested in doing that, as noted in the e-mail I sent, but I found it had blocker problems (chiefly the use of prefixes and the overall complexity of the model), which is why I ended up with something else.

Posted by Ian Hickson at

@jgraham: just to prove the point, on that same help page I see this:

<p><span<strong

And this:

<img src="www.example.com/bobsmith.jpg" />

And this:

</span></span></p>

So I guess by your standards, and your means of ‘proving’ them, HTML itself apparantly also does not offer that ease of authoring :).

Posted by Laurens Holst at

Ian: I stand by my statement.  As near as I can tell, you were not interested in describing how to put RDFa into an HTML document, instead you were interested in addressing the use cases that RDFa purports to address.

In particular, note that I used the word purports.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

This is not a matter of you failing, or not having confidence in you. Or Ian for that matter. But is this how other specifications have been released by the W3C? One person doing all the work, and the rest of the people basically begging for what they want?

As for editors, Ian put out a WG posting some time back looking for editors, but he attached an impossible list of criteria to go with that. If I remember correctly, you had to guarantee 20+ hours a week. And I believe you also had to commit to at least two in-person meetings a year.

For most people, both stipulations would be difficult to follow. I know I couldn’t, especially the in-person meetings.

But I would be willing to help edit one section of the draft, as I imagine other people would other sections of the draft.

Would I help edit the microdata section? No, because I think it’s foolish to invent something completely new, in a hurry because you’re in a snit. Right now, not including anything on metadata is actually preferable to creating yet another metadata proposal, which will most likely cause confusion, split interest, or drive all interest away. And I’ll be arrogant enough to say, I can’t understand anyone thinking this is a good, and sane solution.

But I would be willing to help edit a section on RDFa in HTML. Or the SVG section. Accessibility. Actually most of the specification...with the understanding that, unlike others involved, I’m not finally supported by a company to do this sort of work. A lot of people aren’t.

But I won’t fork the damn thing. To create something that will be ignored--well other than the writing you allude to you in your post.

Posted by Shelley at

Do you say that we need more working drafts to choose from?

There are more alterantive proposals than the two you mentioned, Sam. For example Rob Burn’s DTD based draft initiative from early this year. And today I learned about  HTML 4.0.1 plus by Toby Inkster, which provides a DTD that allows RDFa, ARIA, @target and much other cool stuff, from last summer.

Posted by Leif Halvard Silli at

Shelley: permit me to enumerate a few options:

My points?  First that is not the fault of the “one person doing all the work” that other people aren’t writing specifications.  And, no, I am not saying that you need to write specifications, but somebody does.  In fact I see four names on the RDFa in XHTML document that I think would be excellent candidates.  And, no, they don’t need to follow Ian’s rules.  Second, while begging Ian is an option, it is not the only option.

Leif: if such documents are presented to the W3C and gain consensus, they will be published as products of the working group.  That being said — and without having read those documents, and without having formally assessed consensus — I do sense a high degree of buy in by browser vendors on the parsing and error recovery rules contained in Ian’s draft.  Anything that substantially differs from that will likely have a difficult time gaining consensus.  But that’s only applies to a portion of Ian’s document.  In particular, browser vendors don’t have as vested an interest in topics like RDFa, Microdata, and Microformats so there is considerable wiggle room there.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Technology Related Links for May 13th

If you are looking to follow this series, be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed at [link]... [more]

Trackback from ASPInsiders

at

I stand by my statement.  As near as I can tell, you were not interested in describing how to put RDFa into an HTML document, instead you were interested in addressing the use cases that RDFa purports to address.

My goal is indeed to address a particular set of use cases, and not to push any particular technology. However, I was interested in using RDFa to fulfill that goal. I just didn’t find it suitable when evaluated against those goals.

This might just be semantic quibbling though. :-)

Posted by Ian Hickson at

Shelley:


As for editors, Ian put out a WG posting some time back looking for editors, but he attached an impossible list of criteria to go with that. If I remember correctly, you had to guarantee 20+ hours a week. And I believe you also had to commit to at least two in-person meetings a year.

My e-mail didn’t say people had to guarantee that level of commitment; those numbers were merely my estimates as to how much work it would take to write and maintain the relevant specs. If someone is able to do the work with less time, so much the better.

Posted by Ian Hickson at

Sam, whatever.

Posted by Shelley at

“Sam, whatever”

Well, that was rude of me. I’m tired, not feeling well, and disappointed that HTML5 is basically nothing more than a lost opportunity. But, I’ll leave the rudeness to those who seem to enjoy it.

Ian, if other people put together a proposal for a section on RDFa in HTML5, would you put the text into the HTML5 working document, to encourage discussion and allow it to  undergo the same consensus process? After all, if it sucks, consensus would ensure it was pulled. If people are horrified at prefixes, consensus would kill the proposal.

Now, I will volunteer as editor for that process, though as Sam has pointed out, there are others more capable.

Posted by Shelley at

there are others more capable

That’s not what I said.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Sam, I wasn’t being defensive. You pointed out the editors of the RDFa document. They are more capable. Frankly, I’d be tickled if they were involved.

But the ball is in Ian’s court, now.

Posted by Shelley at

W3C - Shell company for WHAT WG

W3C Credibility crisis Credibility/Esteem trend analysis Sam Ruby Sez: A full answer to that is that there is a specification being developed by the WHATWG that the W3C publishes. Meanwhile, the full incompetence of the xhtml2 WG is detailed by...

Excerpt from Last Week in HTML5 at

HTML5 Microdata Fantasy

I haven’t been tracking HTML5 design efforts lately but what’s being proposed for microdata (see posts by Sam Ruby and Shelly Powers) yucked me sufficiently to revisit an old fantasy of mine about HTML (man, what a boring life I have)....

Excerpt from Don Park's Daily Habit at

It occurred to me that you should probably be considering GRDDL alongside RDFa as part of your microdata solution. In theory, it will better handle some of the requirements for handling very long documents or very numerous page template instances more efficiently than RDFa which would require repetition in the markup.

Like RDFa, GRDDL is a W3C Recommendation, and could be for data what CSS is for styles.

Posted by Simon Gibbs at

The Week of Microdata

It’s been a really busy week for microdata. So busy that I haven’t personally had a chance to read up on all the details of the various announcements. That won’t stop me from trying to summarize it all for you, though. First, Ian...

Excerpt from CSSquirrel at

Could Microdata work better for me than RDFa?

I’ve always had my little issues with RDFa, mainly for personal reasons. I’m repeating them here (for the last time, promised, don’t want to trigger another flame war): I personally don’t like the amount of new attributes and their names (about,...

Excerpt from Planet RDF at

Could Microdata work better for me than RDFa?

... the new “Microdata” proposal is currently being discussed, so it might be worth to have a look and compare it with my RDFa issue list above ...... [more]

Trackback from benjamin nowack's blog

at

bdarcus: Been a really interesting 24 hours or so if you're interested in structured data in HTML: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/05/12/Microdata

bdarcus: Been a really interesting 24 hours or so if you’re interested in structured data in HTML: [link]...

Excerpt from Twitter / bdarcus at

When Social Media Closes Door

I have work to do, trying to pull a lot of pieces together into some semblance of a balanced and comprehensive document on HTML5, RDFa, Microdata, et al, but first, I need decompression time from an excess of social media this last week. I don’t...

Excerpt from Bb RealTech at

Add your comment