- From: Alexander Botero-Lowry <alexbl@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:23:21 -0700
- To: Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, "jasnell@gmail.com" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > > > 20.06.2012, 01:05, "Stéphane Corlosquet" <scorlosquet@gmail.com>: > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru> > wrote: > > Well, validators developers will not be very happy with this change. > However, if it happens, I prefer 'type' name, because 'additionalType' > implies there are other, non-additional ones. > > I disagree. 'type' would be misleading and imply that all types are set by > this property, when it is not the case. > > Why not? I don't see any semantic difference. Syntactic - yes. > Also I don't see any reason, why this > <div itemscope> > <link itemprop="type" content="http://mytype.type"> > </div> > must differ from > <div itemscope itemtype="http://mytype.type"/> > It can be some differences while disambiguating property names, but > schema.org property names are unique. > When a single type is specified, there is no problem at all. > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#items "The item types must all be types defined in applicable specifications and must all be defined to use the same vocabulary." suggests that an @itemtype implies a vocabulary. the http://mytype.type/ type isn't necessarily a part of the schema.org vocabulary, so may not define 'additionalType' or 'type.' Without an @itemtype no vocabulary is implied to exist for the given itemscope. alex
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 21:23:52 UTC