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

Re: Draft Note for HTML WG

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:44:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+aFqqqp2F6BkD8vStp6ZqFyNAizVYOzK7xJTfwqqxpaJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
On 14 November 2011 11:27, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2011, at 09:58, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> On 14 November 2011 10:04, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>> - I think the 'typing' issue is still unresolved. I continue to believe that allowing multiple types in microdata, either within itemtype or with a different microdata attribute, would be important, and any other solution (eg, schema.org/type) is just a hack. I realize that there is a stiff opposition to this, but it merits a line in the report.
>>> - is it worth referring to RDFa Lite?
>>
>> Yes, multiple types came up a few times at the Schema.org workshop as
>> something that aids decentralisation, vocab mixing and richer
>> description...
>
>
> I will add to the note that we have discussed supporting multiple types in microdata with Hixie and he is not convinced of the requirement, so we have documented the workarounds that are available to microdata users at [1].
>
> As I understand the HTML WG process, I think that if we wanted to push on this further it would require us to raise an explicit bug on supporting multiple types in microdata. When that was formally resolved without change (as it will be) we would then have to write a change proposal.
>
> The job of this TF is to document how the syntaxes can be used together. The bug reports that we raise should be focused on making it easier to work with more than one syntax in concert, or to move between them. In some ways, the more focused each syntax is the easier it is for us to make clear recommendations about choosing between them such as those at [2].
>
> What do people here think? Is microdata support for multiple types from different vocabularies something that we should be pursuing more aggressively? Are there any volunteers for writing a change proposal and shepherding it through the HTML WG process?

It certainly wouldn't hurt to have a more carefully documented use
case for multiple-types. But perhaps it's better to to leave Microdata
as Microdata rather than try to mutate it into RDFa Lite, since we
already have one of those. Getting the RDF view of Microdata right
seems more important to me than making Microdata fully RDFish.

Dan

> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Mixing_HTML_Data_Formats#Mixing_Vocabularies_in_microdata
> [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/Choosing_an_HTML_Data_Format#Syntax_Considerations
> --
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
>
>
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 10:45:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 November 2011 10:45:25 GMT