W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

Re: ISSUE-76: Need feedback on splitting Microdata into separate specification

From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:39:25 +0000
Message-ID: <4B1D841D.50003@weborganics.co.uk>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>   
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
>>     
>>> Why is it not conceivably reusable outside of HTML?
>>>       
>> Well, okay, let me back down a bit on that.  It's conceivably reusable 
>> outside of HTML, yes.  But no more or less than, say, <video>.  It's 
>> plausible that other specifications would want to include videos.  For 
>> instance, SVG currently allows embedding bitmap images, and it might 
>> make sense for it to allow embedding videos too.  The same goes for many 
>> other parts of HTML, even <img>.
>>     
>
> It's actually even worse than those two, because the microdata processing 
> model makes certain assumptions about the vocabulary. For SVG to reuse 
> itemscope=""/itemprop=""/etc, the processing model would have to be 
> rewritten to define how it works in SVG, 

 Hmm I don't know if that is an accurate assertion...

.."The semantics of the RDFa attributes are the same as for XHTML"...

http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/12/rdfa_and_svg_tiny_and_the_rdfa.html

There are differences but not much ;)

-- 
Martin McEvoy

WebOrganics http://weborganics.co.uk/
Add to address book: http://transformr.co.uk/hcard/http://weborganics.co.uk/
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 22:39:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:54 UTC