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
  "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,

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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:22 UTC