[gerwitz]Starting a new site from scratch, basically a static corporate blog. Someone help me understand why to include microformats when HTML microdata is “the it thing”?
[tantek]gerwitz, that's perhaps three different things that overlap but aren't the same per se. i.e. why include microformats (because they're useful peer-to-peer, #indieweb style), why is microdata "the it thing" (?), why not to trust schema.org
[cleverdevil], bradenslen, jgmac1106, [jgmac1106] and [davidmead] joined the channel
[gerwitz]The motivation is to be a good web citizen, and “the ‘it’ thing” is driven by a sense that such good citizenry emerges from majority implementation.
[schmarty]gerwitz: the desire to pick a "winner" is understandable. choosing one that will be "best" for you is going to depend heavily on the kinds of interactions you want this site to have with the world.
[tantek]This is precisely why current microformats best practice is to use one classic microformat for the root or main object of the page (because Google indexes them), and then markup that object and any others with microformats2 for all the other parsing/consuming implementations out there
[tantek]gerwitz, as aaronpk notes, Google indexes blog posts (and plenty of other content) just fine with microformats without worrying about rdfa, microdata, JSON-LD or whatever syntax comes next.
[tantek]schema org did produce a massive vocabulary (somewhat re-using/forking other vocabularies, somewhat out of whole cloth, somewhat from outside contributions), though it's unclear which small subset of that is actually relevant for Google results
[kevinmarks]Also, you are likely to get demand for other forms of metadata depending on where you expect the site to be shared. Facebook, twitter, slack, Pinterest all have different demands