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

Re: Draft Note for HTML WG

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:59:51 +0000
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <49F288A5-98CF-4225-92AF-8529FCCAD1F2@jenitennison.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Dan,

On 14 Nov 2011, at 10:44, Dan Brickley wrote:
> It certainly wouldn't hurt to have a more carefully documented use
> case for multiple-types.

I don't think there is a persuasive one for microdata, particularly as the pattern of use for microdata at the moment is to roll everything into the schema.org vocabulary. From what I can tell, Hixie doesn't even believe that the vocabularies in the WHATWG microdata spec will actually be published or consumed by anyone. (If he did then I'd hope that [1] was sufficient documentation of a use case.)

If schema.org recommended extending the set of types that they support not through string concatenation but by publishers minting their own vocabularies, we might have a different picture. Of course, since microdata wouldn't be able to support that, we're kind of in a chicken-and-egg situation! :)

> 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.

Yes, that's my feeling too.

Cheers,

Jeni

[1] http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/161
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 11:00:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 November 2011 11:00:24 GMT