tl;dr: It's easy enough to support microformats v2 (and even backcompat for v1) and they don't/shouldn't create any conflicts so why not support them out of the box?
I think that a forward-looking platform like Auttomatic should definitely be supporting (and perhaps even iterating internally) on microformats2, particularly since they're simple added classes that give semantic meaning to the massive amounts of data that are put on the web via the platform. This makes them much more valuable to end users of the web (and doesn't mean they're simply a cut-and-dried SEO tool for Google's benefit.)
Though schema and microformats are meant for the same types of general functionality, their implementations and pros/cons are different. In part, Google controls the schema structure while microformats are more open and extensible, particularly if/when additional classes seem necessary in the wild. Additionally, Google, et al. certainly don't ding sites that use one or the other or even both.
I also know there were a few plugins in the repository that used to support microformats v1 that aren't actively supported anymore (see https:/
Kevin Marks does a pretty good job of laying out microformats vs. schema here: http:/
Amy Guy, part of the W3C Team and co-staff contact for the Social Web working group, also has some useful thoughts on the benefits of microformats (and comparison with linked data) as well: http:/
I'm doing some parsing related work on my suggested (pending) pull request to make sure that parsers will properly read the recipe data. It may require a tweak or two prior to pulling.
Additional References:
http:/
http:/