- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 21:53:03 +0000
- To: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>
- Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Jason, On 5 Nov 2011, at 17:28, Jason Douglas wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: >> I suppose I was fishing a bit because of course if a search engine *was* [bringing together information from multiple pages based on id] then it would picking up information in different languages about those things, and it would want to preserve the language of the information so that they could present something useful back to the users. And that would be a good example for Hixie on the bug on microdata language handling [1]… > > In as much as Hixie's response is it's "up to the vocabulary" and what most everyone seems to want is the same -- use the existing DOM mechanisms, so overall page language with @lang for overriding specific nodes -- should we just state that's what schema.org processors will do (I know of at least one implementer who had that expectation :-)? Hixie's response to the bug was that it's up to the vocabulary *to provide relevant properties* [2]. OTOH, there is not currently any wording that prevents a consumer from using the full set of information that is available within the DOM in its interpretation of microdata, and using the HTML language is, as you say, the obvious thing to do. I think we should aim for an end state in which schema.org's handling of microdata is consistent with the microdata specification (and vice versa). Any comments that you can make on the bug based on schema.org experience would be helpful in progressing towards that state... Thanks, Jeni > [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14470 [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14470#c1 -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 21:53:39 UTC