« BA is halfway between GED and PhD
Copyright turns us into technology idiots »

Microformats are worse

I almost entirely agree with Mark Birbeck’s comparison of RDFa and microformats. The only thing to be said in defense of is that a few of the problems Birbeck calls out are also features, from the microformats perspective.

But .

I will reveal what this means later.

Another quip: My problem with microformats is the s.

Evan Prodromou provided a still-good RDFa vs Microformats roundup (better title: “RDFa and Microformats, please work together”) in May. I somehow missed it until now.

Ah, metadata.

Update 20061204: I didn’t miss Prodromou’s roundup in May, I blogged about it. And forgot.

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 22nd, 2006 at 19:58 and is filed under Creative Commons, Microformats, Peeves, Semantic Web. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

2 Responses to “Microformats are worse”

  1. Mike Linksvayer » Wikipedia and Linking 2.0 Says:
    January 22nd, 2007 at 13:11

    [...] In the case of non-Wikipedia links (and those too), combatting linkrot and providing alternate and related (e.g., reference, reply, archival) links is an obvious feature add for social bookmarking services and can be made available to a CMS or browser via the usual web API/feed/scraping mechanisms. [...]

  2. Mike Linksvayer » Perils of a too cool name Says:
    February 14th, 2007 at 18:29

    [...] seen lots of confusion about microformats, but Jon Udell takes the cake in describing XMP: It’s a bit of a mish-mash, to say the least. [...]

Leave a Reply