- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 21:40:41 +0000
- To: public-html-admin@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26748
Bug ID: 26748
Summary: Reference to schema.org should not say "microdata
vocabulary"
Product: HTML WG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: CR HTML5 spec
Assignee: robin@w3.org
Reporter: res-html@untief.org
QA Contact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
CC: public-html-admin@w3.org
The current HTML5 CR has a "Note" about the article element [1] (it’s also in
HTML 5.1 Nightly [2]):
> The schema.org microdata vocabulary can be used to provide the publication date for an article element, using one of the CreativeWork subtypes.
I’m not sure how useful it is in the first place to reference Schema.org (as it
just happens to be a popular vocabulary currently, but this may change), but in
case this info is kept, it should be edited:
Schema.org is a vocabulary that can be used with Microdata, but it’s not
exclusively a "microdata vocabulary": It can be used with RDFa, JSON-LD, and
whatnot to come. In fact, the "canonical machine representation" [3] of the
vocabulary is in RDFa [4].
So it should say something like:
> The schema.org vocabulary can be used to […]
Other things to consider (but these should probably get their own issue, I
assume):
* Why not add a link to <http://schema.org/>, and/or "CreativeWork"?
* Why not name/link the actual propety in question, datePublished [5]?
* Shouldn’t the whole Info be rephrased, so that it references schema.org only
as a possible example of many vocabularies?
[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/CR-html5-20140731/sections.html#the-article-element
[2]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/sections.html#the-article-element
[3] http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html
[4] http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html
[5] http://schema.org/datePublished
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 7 September 2014 21:40:43 UTC