W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Canonicalizing relative URLs seen in URL type properties?

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:18:09 +0200
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.v3ndoji5sr6mfa@kirk>
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:43:49 +0200, Martin Hepp  
<martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> Okay, so we are in agreement that both for itemtypes and for href values  
> that identify enumerated entities, the canonical URI must be used  
> without any variations that RFC2616 may allow at the protocol level.

For itemtypes, yes, but what are "href values that identify enumerated  
entities"? An example may make things clearer:

<base href="http://example.com">
<p itemscope itemtype="httP://fOOlip.Org:80/ex">
   <a itemprop="p1" href="httP://fOOlip.Org:80/foo">bla</a>
   <a itemprop="p1" href="bar">bla</a>

The JSON representation of this is:


In other words, the item type is not resolved, while the properties are.  
Resolving is effectively a form of normalization.

(Note: I haven't updated Live Microdata to handle multiple types yet, so  
the JSON above is slightly incorrect.)

> I think that is a good consensus; I seem to have misunderstood your  
> earlier comments about URLs for itemtypes.

My earlier comments were about URLs as property values, i.e. in itemprop.  
Perhaps that is where the confusion is?

> Quite clearly, advanced consumers of Microdata will try to be tolerant  
> and catch common mistakes / variations, but that is outside the  
> specification level.

I have to disagree strongly with this. A consumer that does anything  
beyond what the spec requires is non-conforming. If there are any common  
mistakes that need to be handled, then the spec should be changed so that  
all conforming implementation do the same thing.

Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 11:18:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:21 UTC