- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:59:51 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Dan, On 14 Nov 2011, at 10:44, Dan Brickley wrote: > It certainly wouldn't hurt to have a more carefully documented use > case for multiple-types. I don't think there is a persuasive one for microdata, particularly as the pattern of use for microdata at the moment is to roll everything into the schema.org vocabulary. From what I can tell, Hixie doesn't even believe that the vocabularies in the WHATWG microdata spec will actually be published or consumed by anyone. (If he did then I'd hope that [1] was sufficient documentation of a use case.) If schema.org recommended extending the set of types that they support not through string concatenation but by publishers minting their own vocabularies, we might have a different picture. Of course, since microdata wouldn't be able to support that, we're kind of in a chicken-and-egg situation! :) > But perhaps it's better to to leave Microdata > as Microdata rather than try to mutate it into RDFa Lite, since we > already have one of those. Getting the RDF view of Microdata right > seems more important to me than making Microdata fully RDFish. Yes, that's my feeling too. Cheers, Jeni [1] http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/161 -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 11:00:24 UTC