W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2014

Re: ItemList

From: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 15:03:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMbipBvBZOBWUCzTjK28DpwM=-07c3qa9BhBK79GLGuLsSoXmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
Cc: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, Justin Boyan <jaboyan@google.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>wrote:

> I believe, to not force a format change (Microdata to say RDFa) to enable
a sizeable community to use this, we need to define properties to describe
ordering - in the same way that the additionalType property on Thing is
there for the Microdata folks to do something that RDFa can do natively.

+1.  Deciding not to go down a particular developmental path in
schema.orgbecause that path is deemed to be unwise, unnecessary or too
much in
support of an edge case is, I think, a legitimate decision.  Deciding not
to go down a particular developmental path in schema.org because there's a
mechanism available in *just one or two* of the three officially supported
methods of using schema.org is a very slippery slope indeed.

Relying on syntax-specific solutions to any schema.org problem potentially
places an additional burden on webmasters insofar as they're forced to
become knowledgeable in a syntax that otherwise doesn't suit their needs
and/or force them to modify publishing mechanisms (such as a content
management system) in order to continue using schema.org to its full
potential.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 22:03:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:41 UTC