W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2015

Re: microdata itemscope question/scenario

From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 11:57:51 +0200
To: Chad Meyers <chad@nobodyfamous.ca>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1611430647071@webcorp01g.yandex-team.ru>
03.05.2015, 00:32, "Chad Meyers" <chad@nobodyfamous.ca>:
> Here's the layout;
>
> 3 separate itemscope's all about the same organization;
> 1. A farm/business logo, with the farm name in it
> 2. the address (street, city, state, phone)
> 3. the farmer/owner name, mailing address, same phone + an email
>
> content is located in different places around the page(s) #1 top
> center, #2 top right, #3 bottom right hence the need to have them inside
> separate itemscopes
>
> Is this wrong? 

No.

>Can I link the 3 together? Should I just add
> "Missing/implicit information" eg. <meta itemprop="name" content="Farm
> Name" /> to each set?

Well, the aggregate content of the page provides all the data, right? No need to duplicate it so it is in each "itemscope" statement.

> I suppose I could put the itemscope on something like the body element,
> and then just add the itemprop where needed, but this feels very wrong.

I don't see it as wrong at all. It is just that it would break *if* you were trying to mix two different vocabularies.

It makes it harder to copy/paste a particular piece of code - so there is a maintenance issue, and preferred style is probably to use the itemscope as locally as possible for thins reason, but that's really a matter of workflow, style and maintenance.

In my opinion, of course

cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Sunday, 3 May 2015 09:58:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 3 May 2015 09:58:23 UTC