RE: HTML-Info design

[Phillip Lord]

They both will work. RDFa is slightly more general, in that it maps through to 
RDF and can be considered
to be an alternative syntax for it.

In the case of HTML-info the level of semantics requires is pretty small. As 
far as I can see, the knowledge is 
rather limited to a little big of navigational, and index data and some "this 
is a function", "this is a var" data.




________________________________________
From: address@hidden address@hidden on behalf of Steinar Bang address@hidden
Sent: 27 December 2014 11:04
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: HTML-Info design

>>>>> Lennart Borgman <address@hidden>:

>> Do you mean "microformat"?

> It is called microdata, see http://schema.org

There is something called "microformat" (which I knew about), as well as
something called "microdata" (which I didn't know about).

They are similar, but different, and you are right that microdata seems
to be able to do the same thing as RDFa.  Both microdata and RDFa are
metaformats for creating semantic markup.

(microformat is more like a set of fixed vocabularies for certain
popular kinds of metadata)

>> I would be very surprised if google et. al didn't look for both.

> So would I be, but at the moment microdata seems to come first.

(That (in all probability) doesn't have anything to do with the formats
used, but the nature of the pages using them, and the number of "good"
pages using them)

>> But that's beside the point.  What I meant that RDFa is a good way to
>> add semantic information to the page, in a form that can be used by an
>> emacs HTML-info browser: you can define your own property types in an
>> RDFa compliant manner.

> Yes. And you can do the same with microdata I think.

Yes, it looks like you can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdata_(HTML)

(Personally I'm partial to RDFa, since I already know RDF and read Tim
Berners-Lee's thoughts on the semantic web way back when, and I just
heard about microdata yesterday)