W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Comment versus UserComments

From: Daniel Dulitz <daniel@google.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:48:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CACWrOGYO98Fpn_BDjm_KjcPt=iP=X3euV8Ukde1+r5VaP8yScw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: "Sandhaus, Evan" <sandhes@nytimes.com>, public-vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Regarding http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Comment#Core_Proposal :

The "issues" section implies that the text property might be added to
Comment:
  "text" is added; it carries the textual body of the comment.
Can we remove that bullet and add "text" to the list of properties that are
inherited (previous bullet)?

Thanks everyone,
d

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 13:02, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On 8 March 2012 21:46, Sandhaus, Evan <sandhes@nytimes.com> wrote:
> > This all sounds great, I like the idea of a text property.
> >
> > Quick question though - will the articleBody & reviewBody attributes be
> removed/deprecated?
> >
> > As this would require changes to The NYT implementation and the IPTC
> rNews schema.org documentation, I suggest that we not remove/deprecate
> these properties.
>
> Thanks for the review, Evan. In general I don't think "deprecate" is
> something we'll ever be doing much of around here. Once we've
> encouraged the public to adopt some markup, I think we have to accept
> that it'll be "out there" indefinitely. At some point certain things
> will probably get marked as 'old fashioned' (archaic), or as synonyms
> for a more preferred form. But it's important to respect when markup
> is published in good faith, and not expect publishers to be constantly
> updating content to the latest preferred vocabulary flavour. The
> general approach of schema.org is to try to make things easy on
> publishers, even if this pushes some burden onto consumers (e.g. the
> search engines).
>
> So if we introduce synonyms and generalisations, the burden is on
> consumers to accept both variants, rather than on publishers to update
> all their content.
>
> Seeing your subsequent exchange with Will, it sounds like marking
> these a 'synonym' may work here. It's not core to the proposal but
> seems worthwhile, to improve our documentation on how all these
> similar-sounding properties relate to each other.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 23:49:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:49:00 GMT