- From: Alexander Botero-Lowry <alexbl@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:48:09 -0700
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, jasnell@gmail.com, public-vocabs@w3.org, "Martin Hepp (UniBW)" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > Thanks everyone. Lots of mail! > > I have tried to make a brief summary of some of the points in the Web > Schemas wiki, just a sketch of individual positions really rather than > a summary of the whole debate. I also started there to write up > details of a concrete proposal for 'additionalType'. > > http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/additionalTypeProposal ... > > Since nobody has volunteered to lead an effort to get Microdata syntax > changed to support multiple types from different vocabularies, and on > balance after reading thru all the debate, I think we should go for > the new property approach. Funny, as I was checking the spec to comment on the vocabulary issue, I noticed it had changed since we implemented it: ``The item types of an item are the tokens obtained by splitting the element's itemtype attribute's value on spaces. If the itemtype attribute is missing or parsing it in this way finds no tokens, the item is said to have no item types.'' @itemtype now does allow multiple values. Though the list is explicitly unordered so all of the types in the list need to be a part of the same vocabulary for this to be usable. alex
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 21:48:39 UTC