No one is served by a bloated specification, and once an element is added to a specification, it tends to linger even if it is removed in a later version. For this reason, it’s the World Wide Web Consortium‘s (W3C) job to keep the number of elements in the HTML specification small. Webdesigning isn’t going to become any easier if the number of elements would double all of a sudden. On the other hand however, the limited amount of elements force webdesigners to be very unspecific when they wrap a piece of data into an element. And despite the introduction of elements like <header>, <nav> and <details> into the HTML5 specification, most HTML structures still lack clear semantic meaning. There is no <person>, <car>, <address> or <phonenumber> element for example. This means that by default the computer has no way to distinguish persons from cars when it draws the information onto your screen. Does this bother you? Probably not, since you can more often than not tell the difference quite easily anyway. We recognize a phone number when we see one, we know “Peter Jackson” is a name, whereas “the new Honda Prius” probably refers to a car.

However, you might be more appreciative when your browser would recognize an address for what it is, and present you the option of navigating to that address. Likewise, it could on occasion be handy if your smartphone browser would recognize a phone number, and allow you to speed dial it by a merely touching it with your finger. Adding semantic meaning to an HTML structure is not directly beneficial to us, but if we can get computers to understand what they’re showing us, a whole new world op possibilities opens up! Now this idea isn’t revolutionary, people have been trying to get additional semantic elements into the HTML specification for years. It has even been declared one of the key properties of the Web 3.0 by the founder of the W3C, Sir Tim Berners-Lee. But over 7 years ago, when the W3C made no attempt to include additional elements or attributes to HTML to allow for such semantic annotations, a small group of people decided to take the matter into their own hands, with the creation of the Microformats extension.

The Microformats specification was developed completely outside of W3C control and relied heavily on the use of the class-attribute in order to add semantic meaning. This attribute of course already existed and was originally added to the HTML specification with CSS in mind, instead of semantics. It didn’t invalidate HTML however and was the only real format available for quite some time, which is why sites like Google and LinkedIn adopted it early on. Its competitor Resource Description Framework in attributes (RDFa) arrived late at the scene and is a completely different story. Development of RDFa started in 2004, when it was officially included into the W3C XHTML 2 specification. When the W3C pulled the plug on XHTML 2 in 2009, RDFa was saved and copied into a separate specification for use with HTML, called HTML+RDFa. It quickly rose to fame when in early 2010 it was adopted by Facebook in order to power their Open Graph.

Both Microformats and RDFa annotate HTML elements with semantic meaning, though both take a completely different approach. Microformats (ab)uses the class-attributes, whereas RDFa relies on XML constructs like namespaces. Both have managed to gain some traction and are currently in use throughout the world wide web. With RDFa now officially connected to HTML, the W3C had finally managed to introduce its own specification for annotating HTML elements. So why on earth would the W3C invest time in creating another annotiation specification? In short: they didn’t.

Insert the WHAT Work Group. In 2004, when the W3C decided to focus on XHTML instead of HTML, a few individuals from Apple, Mozilla and Opera started their own work group in order to make sure HTML would continue to evolve. It was they who came up with new elements like <video>, <canvas> and <header>, you have all fallen in love with. It took until 2006 before the W3C realized it had made a mistake and came knocking on WHATWG’s door. They had seen the light and wanted to cooperate with the WHATWG on a new HTML specification. They adopted nearly everything the WHATWG gad bene working on and continued from there. Now you might expect the WHATWG had already developed the Microdata spec before the W3C contacted them, but this wasn’t the case. In fact, it was not until 2009 before the Microdata specification came into existence. At the WHATWG, Ian Hixon was in charge of HTML 5 and in early 2009 he made adding semantics to HTML 5 one of his priorities. It was he who came up with the Microdata specification.

Unlike RDFa, Microdata was meant for HTML from the start. It had however been developed by just one man, whereas RDFa was created by a group of people. With all the effort that had gone into the creation of the RDFa spec, some people weren’t very happy with Microdata being part of the official HTML5 specification just like that. After much debate, the W3C decided to move Microdata from the official HTML 5 specification to its own spec. However, it is still part of the official WHATWG HTML 5 specification. This might sound strange, but we’ll have to learn to live with the fact that the opinion of the WHATWG and the W3C’s differ from time to time.

So, now you know where Microdata came from and what it has to offer. Check out the following links if you want to learn more, and to see how you can use it in your own projects:

• Dive Into HTML5 – What is Microdata
• HTML5 Microdata: What is it, and why should you care?
• Extending HTML5 – Microdata

Ok, so it’s not really free. It will probably cost you some time and effort to get it right. However, the people responsible for the preparations might welcome the temporary break from their daily work. And when executed correctly, your brand will be all over the Internet! Everybody likes a good laugh, so give your -potential- customers a treat!

Unfortunately it’s not always that simple to come up with a good joke/hoax. Additionally, most of the really good ones take some time to prepare. So if you are reading this post before April 1st, 2011, you should already be well on your way. Take the time to do it right. Look at your idea from all possible angles. A last minute, hastily implemented idea might be a recipe for disaster! And make sure your idea is original. An unoriginal joke isn’t fun and might work adversely.

If you’re a small company without a boatload of users, you will need to come up with something really, really funny in order to get widespread attention. On the other hand, if you do have a boatload of users, you can get away with something that is only mildly funny. It will probably get picked up anyway. Make no mistake, most of the blogs spend a good portion of the day to post about all the fun stuff that is out there. After all, they want their userbase to be able to check it out while they still can and beat the competition by providing the best links, or the most. Being funnier than 95% of the competition will pay off!

Whatever you do, test your idea on a few people before running with it. At the very least make sure it doesn’t get in the way of the actual service you are providing, especially if your users are paying for it! You want people to enjoy the experience, not piss them off because your service was malfunctioning for a day.

Is there in any Social Media in all of this? Why yes, most certainly and in numerous ways! Though you might not be using any of the standard Social Media tools/platforms, your users will. If it’s funny enough, they will generate the digital word-of-mouth buzz for you! Besides, entertaining your customers shows you care and your customers will love you for it!

So.. Start scheduling those brainstorm sessions already to come up with a great hoax for next year!

A few nights ago however, I watched this hour long interview with Gary, by Jason Calacanis on his ‘This Week in Startups’ show. And honestly, I was blown away! Not only did he mention a few things that were already on my list for future blog posts, he mentioned a great deal more that just made sense. We seem to agree on so many points, I was wearing a big smile from beginning to end, and probably for some time after I was done watching it. Sure, a good few of the points he touches have been discussed previously by Gary during the last year, but he really manages to boil them down to their essence in this interview.

Do you want to know where social media is heading? Do you want to know what role traditional media can still play in your campaigns? Do you want to know the ROI of caring about your customers? Watch and learn! You have no excuse for not watching it, your questions will be answered!

All in all, I’m really happy to have come across this interview, just as I was preparing the launch of my new blog. Being one of my greatest inspirations, there is no better way to start of this blog than with Gary’s latest video. If you want to know more about social media and you want to know what social media is all about, you have got to check him out.

Now stop reading, and start watching!

Klik hier om de embedded video te bekijken.