Talk:XHTML+RDFa

Duplicate article, some outdated, incorrect examples/info. Expert attention needed!

Unless this article is intended to specifically address uses of RDFa in XHTML, it should be merged into the RDFa article, which is more mature, and also already primarily addresses XHTML in depth rather than specifically the proposed RDFa core for use in arbitrary XML languages. If this article is to remain then the other article should be modified to speak more generally.

The example in this article confusingly mixes RDFa CURIEs with the older DC.* naming convention for binding attributes to a Dublin Core vocabulary as defined in rfc2731 and the (AFAICT, depreciated) eRDF spec without linking to a GRDDL transform (or making any mention of GRDDL). There is also no use of an RDFa profile, GRDDL profile, or HTML profile - actually neither article discusses profiles (such as proposed for XHTML+RDFa 1.1 for binding with vocabularies from an external resource), nor is there a mention of microformats or recent work in specifying RDFa in XHTML5 or polyglot markup.

Both of these articles require some serious expert attention, expansion, and updating to account for recent events, and probably either condensation into a single article or reworking of both. The semantic web is becoming increasingly confusing to even seasoned web developers as information on fundamental concepts such as this are diffuse and contradictory on the wider internet (if you don't already know where to look, Google is going to be a long, slow, painful road to understanding). Since Wikipedia is likely one of the first resources people come across I think it's important that there be solid, accurate, up-to-date articles in place which clearly explain the zoo of metadata specifications, their history, relevance, and relationships to one another. Ormaaj (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've restored Ormaaj's (self-deleted) comment above. I disagree with the merge proposal (as a way of writing encyclopedias), but I think it's an important comment that does raise some useful points. It's also rare to have any comment from practitioners in the field. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is (still) a rapidly evolving subject. I'm not so sure how applicable what I said above is any longer. There have been several occurrences in which it was felt this collection of specifications was close to progressing towards the next stages of finalization of the next version over the last year or two. Anyone who put a lot of work into this article would probably find everything changing out from under them too quickly for it to remain relevant. These days this article probably does have a legitimate place but isn't worth more than a few sentences explaining what it is and pointing to some external resources until things solidify. Ormaaj (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)