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

Re: noted 3 issues re: time/data (was Re: minutes for HTML WG f2f, 2011-11-04, part 1)

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:59:27 +0100
To: "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.v45f1dgvsr6mfa@kirk>
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:48:53 +0100, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com  
<mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote:

> The only point of @itempropvalue is to replace redundant DATA element.  
> If we don't need DATA element, then the @itempropvalue is probably  
> unneeded too.
>
> So the question is: _either_ DATA element _or_ @itempropvalue attribute.  
> If someone states that @itempropvalue is confusing, then he should  
> provide an example where DATA element in the same situation is not  
> confusing. Otherwise, appropriate discussion branch is pointless.

We cannot provide equivalent markup for itempropvalue unless we know how  
itempropvalue is intended to work:

1. When itempropvalue appears on an URL property elements [1], is it (1)  
ignored (2) resolved as a URL or (3) a plain text property?

2. When itempropvalue appears together with itemscope, is it (1) ignored  
or (2) a plain text property?

[1]  
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#url-property-elements

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 16:00:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:41 GMT