W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > August 2011

[Bug 13469] Enable Web page authors to override text/IRI content

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:16:21 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Qo9DB-0001lW-He@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13469

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |ian@hixie.ch
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX

--- Comment #2 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-08-02 07:16:21 UTC ---
This wouldn't actually be solved by bug 13240, because <data> would still not
associate the DOM contents with the value.

There's no difference in microdata between these two:

   <div itemscope>
     <h1 itemprop=a>bla<em itemprop=b>foo</em>bla</h1>
   </div>

   <div itemscope>
     <meta itemprop=a content="blafoobla">
     <meta itemprop=b content=foo>
   </div>

These are _identical_ from the microdata perspective. The fact that in one some
text is shared between properties, that some text is emphasised, that there are
elements, etc, is irrelevant to the microdata model.

There would similarly be absolutely no difference between these three:

   <data itemprop=a value=foo>bar</data>
   <data itemprop=a value=foo>quux</data>
   <data itemprop=a value=foo></data>

They all convey _exactly_ the same microdata semantics.


Regarding the original request's reasons:

1. What is the use case for this? It doesn't seem necessary. There is nothing
in microdata like this currently (other than top-level microdata items being
associated with a particular element); why would adding this help?

2. This is already possible, just make sure the vocabulary defines the units.
(We learnt from scheme="" on <meta> that having this associated with the data
rather than the definition of the property is bad design.)

3. The assertion in this reason seems false. It does not permit such checking
as far as I can tell. If it did, the whole feature wouldn't be necessary at
all.


EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: No compelling use cases.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 07:16:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:15 UTC