W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > November 2011

Re: @itemid and URL properties in schema.org

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:45:35 +0000
Cc: public-html-data-tf@w3.org
Message-Id: <CDFA273A-A10C-452C-AB2F-5A889ABF20E7@jenitennison.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Philip,

On 5 Nov 2011, at 18:51, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> The spec currently says: "It's important to note that there is no relationship between the microdata and the content of the document where the microdata is marked up."


Although the spec says this, there plainly *is* a relationship, namely that if you use the microdata API to get hold of microdata information then you get to element nodes, which are the content of the document where the microdata is marked up.

This is a useful quality for client-side use and manipulation of embedded data, so I think it would be a mistake to forbid it (for example to make the microdata API simply return objects equivalent to those you get from the JSON mapping), but it does open up questions about the extent to which consumers are permitted to use that extra information from the DOM.

If you look at the output from the rich snippets testing tool, for example, you can see that Google are extracting (and using) the content (or perhaps title) of an <a> element that has an itemprop on it, as well as the URL that it links to. The example of the 'breadcrumbs' property makes me suspect that they are also extracting the structured HTML content of elements when microdata processing dictates that they only get a string.

Anyway, I agree with you that the microdata spec and schema.org microdata usage need to be aligned...

Cheers,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2011 10:46:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 November 2011 10:46:10 GMT