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.

Posted 2006-10-22, filed under Creative Commons, Microformats, Peeves, Semantic Web.

3 Responses

  1. Mike Linksvayer » Wikipedia and Linking 2.0 says:
    2007-01-22 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:
    2007-02-14 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. […]

  3. Semantic ref|pingback for re-use notification « Mike Linksvayer says:
    2011-05-15 at 17:24

    […] all the way to 2003 (I can’t easily pinpoint, as obvious mail searches turn up lots of hand-wringing about structured data in/for web pages, something which persists to this day) people have suggested […]

Leave a Reply