HTML5
This specification defines the 5th major version, second minor revision of the core language of the World Wide Web: the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). In this version, new features continue to be introduced to help Web application authors, new elements continue to be introduced based on research into prevailing authoring practices, and special attention continues to be given to defining clear conformance criteria for user agents in an effort to improve interoperability. This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at This document was published by the Web Platform Working Group as a W3C Recommendation for HTML 5.2 that would obsolete the HTML 5.1 Recommendation. This document was produced by a group operating under the W3C Patent Policy.
Mythical Differences: RDFa Lite vs. Microdata
ian.hixie.ch
Metacrap
0.1. Version History Version 1.3, August 26 2001. Fixed typos. First published version. Version 1.2, May 23 2001. Version 1.1, May 18 2001. Version 1.0, May 15 2001. 1. Metadata is "data about data" -- information like keywords, page-length, title, word-count, abstract, location, SKU, ISBN, and so on. If everyone would subscribe to such a system and create good metadata for the purposes of describing their goods, services and information, it would be a trivial matter to search the Internet for highly qualified, context-sensitive results: a fan could find all the downloadable music in a given genre, a manufacturer could efficiently discover suppliers, travelers could easily choose a hotel room for an upcoming trip. A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be a utopia. 2.2 People are lazy You and me are engaged in the incredibly serious business of creating information. But info-civilians are remarkably cavalier about their information. This laziness is bottomless. 3. Of course not.
HTML5/RDFa Arguments
When I came back from holiday, I caught up with the recent discussions around RDFa and HTML5. It’s exhausting reading so many posts repetitively reiterating the positions of people who all have the best of intentions but fundamentally different priorities. And such a shame that so much energy is spent on fruitless discussion when it could be spent at the very least improving specifications, if not testing, implementing, experimenting or otherwise in some very minor way changing the world. The particular thread’s subject was the use of prefixes, which are used to provide a shorthand for URIs, which are used to name properties such as It’s unquestionable, really, that prefixes are a source of problems: But underlying the arguments about the costs of prefixes are arguments about whether these disadvantages are important enough to stop For example, say that I have a page that contains the triple: or, in a more realistic frame of mind:
RDFa Lite 1.1
Status of This Document This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at This is an Editorial Revision of the Recommendation published on the 7th of June, 2012. W3C is expected to address errata in a future Edited Recommendation of RDFa 1.1 Lite. This document is the culmination of a series of discussions between the World Wide Web Consortium, including the RDFa Working Group, the Vocabularies Community Group, the HTML Working Group, and the sponsors of the schema.org initiative, including Google, Yahoo! This document was published by the RDFa Working Group as a Recommendation. Please see the Working Group's implementation report. This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. 1. This section is non-normative.
About Microformats
Designed for humans first and machines second, microformats are a set of simple, open data formats built upon existing and widely adopted standards. Instead of throwing away what works today, microformats intend to solve simpler problems first by adapting to current behaviors and usage patterns (e.g. XHTML, blogging). Microformats are: A way of thinking about dataDesign principles for formatsAdapted to current behaviors and usage patterns (“Pave the cow paths.”)Highly correlated with semantic XHTML, AKA the real world semantics, AKA lowercase semantic web, AKA lossless XHTMLA set of simple open data format standards that many are actively developing and implementing for more/better structured blogging and web microcontent publishing in general. Microformats are not: The microformats principles See the wiki for more detail.
Rich snippets (microdata, microformats, RDFa en Gegevens markeren) - Webmasterhulpprogramma's Help
Rich snippets (microdata, microformats, RDFa en Data Highlighter) Rich snippets (de paar regels tekst die worden weergegeven onder elk zoekresultaat) zijn bedoeld om gebruikers een idee te geven van wat er op de pagina staat en waarom de pagina relevant is voor hun zoekopdracht. Als Google de inhoud op uw pagina's begrijpt, kunnen we rich snippets maken. Drie stappen voor rich snippets: 1. Google raadt u aan microdata te gebruiken, maar alle drie onderstaande indelingen worden geaccepteerd. 2. Google ondersteunt rich snippets voor deze inhoudstypen: Google kan ook markeringen voor video-inhoud herkennen en we gebruiken deze om onze zoekresultaten te verbeteren. 3. Gebruik de tool voor het testen van gestructureerde gegevens om ervoor te zorgen dat Google uw gemarkeerde gegevens kan lezen en ophalen. Dat is alles. Het kan enige tijd duren voordat rich snippets worden weergegeven in zoekresultaten of op Places-pagina's. Welke methode is geschikt voor u? Opmerking:
What’s Best: Microformats, RDFa, or Micro Data?
In a recent post by Mike Blumenthal about Google’s announcement of supporting Microformats for local search, Andy Kuiper asked in the comments whether it would be best to go with Microdata versus RDFa or Microformat for marking up local business information. As the number of flavors of semantic markup have grown, I think Andy’s not the only one to wonder which markup protocol might be ideal. Here’s my opinion. When you’re asking “which is better?” It’s this last orientation of the question that I’m focusing upon — which semantic protocol is going to work best for Search Engine Optimization (“SEO”)? Now, you might think that since I was probably the earliest marketer to recommend using Microformats for SEO that I’d feel so “invested” in the protocol that I might push it exclusively. Microformats have been established the longest of the three protocols, and used by the search engines the longest. So, which is best for SEO purposes?
