XHTML 2.0 versus microformats?

File under: ,

Interesting article from IBM today called The future of HTML, Part 2: XHTML 2.0:

HTML has long had some elements with semantic associations, such as
<address> and <title>. The problem with
these is that they are few and not extensible. In the meantime, some have
attempted to use the class attribute to give semantics to HTML
elements. This is stretching the purpose of class further than it
was designed for, and can’t be applied very cleanly due to the predominant use
of the attribute for applying CSS styling. (Some argue about this assertion of
the purpose of class, but the latter point is undeniable.)

Sounds like they don’t approve of the microformats approach?  To be fair, the article does promote the value of microformats, but calls microformats a "bridge" approach.

Moving beyond these ad-hoc methods, XHTML 2.0 introduces a method for the
specification of RDF-like metadata within a document. RDF statements are made up
of triples (subject, property, object). For instance, in English you might have
the triple: “my car”, “is painted”, “red”.

I’d like to see the XHTML 2.0 camp present examples of hReview and hCard in XHTML 2.0, so that I can compare the two approaches.

A few other interesting tidbits:

Now look at this example given by Pemberton, which shows how to use metadata
in the actual body of the document:

<h property="title">Welcome to my home page</h>

This denotes the heading as the XHTML 2.0 title of the document, and
specifies it as the inline heading. Finally, an end to writing the title out
twice in every document!

Ah, now this is nice.  Even Contribute has this problem, because we don’t know where to put the title inside an editable region in the <body> tag.

Fed up with writing <pre><code> ...
? Now you can use the new
<blockcode> element.

Also very nice.