- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 15:05:25 +0200
- To: "'W3C Web Schemas Task Force'" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Tuesday, August 05, 2014 1:55 PM, Jarno van Driel wrote: > Unfortunately, from a developer's perspective, having to add @itemid > and <link itemprop="..." href="#itemid"> isn't always solution for > every situation either; It shares one property of @itemref that can > get in the way: The need for an identifier (@id or @itemid). > > And from a developer's perspective this is why I'd like to see > @itemprop-reverse get added to microdata. It just isn't always > feasible to add identifiers throughout a template in a *cost > effective* manner, and adding @itemprop-reverse helps to be able to > resolve this issue. I'm curious. Could you please elaborate a bit on this. All but the second last example in https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/InverseProperties use identifiers and as far as I understood it, you helped creating this. >> "Reading my mini tutorial above, do you still think it will cost you >> "bucketloads of [your] free time"?" > > For others? I sure do. I myself have invested so much time and energy already > that I dare to think I understand most of it by now (thanks to a lot of folks here). > > But try comparing the difference in output in Google's structured data > testing tool between a document that contains microdata and the same > document in RDFa (Lite). Thanks for pointing this out. I somehow never realized it before. > That alone is enough to fry the brain of most > who are trying to make the switch to RDFa (Lite). Fully agreed. This should definitely be fixed. I know, wrong mailing list... -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 13:06:08 UTC