- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:23:15 +0100
- To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Evan Sandhaus <sandhes@nytimes.com>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <philip@foolip.org>, public-html-data-tf@w3.org
Martin, Evan, Ted, Philip, all, After the schema.org workshop, Hixie opened a bug on supporting multiple item types in microdata [1], if they share the same vocabulary. I'm hoping to get some input to see whether we want to make any comment on that bug. Martin / Evan: What you are aiming to do with GoodRelations / rNews and schema.org? Are you recommending people just use the appropriate schema.org types, just the more specialised types from GoodRelations / rNews, or use both at the same time? Ted / Philip: Do you have any feeling about whether browsers might end up natively supporting the microdata vocabularies from the WHATWG HTML spec [2] (eg to give better integration with people's address books or calendars) or are they likely to support equivalent types/properties from the schema.org vocabulary, or do nothing natively with embedded data? Anyone else have any thoughts about multiple types? It seems to me that if our general argument is that consumers should state what they consume and publishers should produce data in multiple formats to match those requirements [3][4], then we're encouraging people to publish with multiple vocabularies, which implies multiple types coming from different vocabularies. Thanks, Jeni [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14233 [2] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#mdvocabs [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-data-tf/2011Oct/0024.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-data-tf/2011Oct/0025.html -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 19:23:52 UTC