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

Re: microdata use cases and Getting data out of poorly written Web pages

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:26:18 +0200
Message-ID: <4A080B59.3000908@malform.no>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson On 09-05-11 10.55:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> It also appears that Ben's objection could be addressed by simply picking a
>> name other than 'property' for that particular attribute.
> Indeed. At the risk of starting a permathread, if anyone has any 
> suggestions of a name that's better than "property", please do suggest it. 
> So far, the only suggestion has been "key", which isn't really better than 
> property="". I think it would do more harm to HTML to have a bad attribute 
> name here than it would to RDFa for the attribute to be the same [...]

"Kind" was something that came to mind even before Ben's objection.

The attribute could be called @kind, but could eventually be referred to 
in the draft as the "kind property". For many authors that are not 
programmers, "kind" could probably work just as well as "property". So 
you can see how it could work, I made a "test draft" where I simply 
replaced property/properties with kind/kinds/kind property/kind properties:


To many, "kind" would for example probably give better meaning than 
"property" in this example from the draft - last example in section 5.1.1:

<div item>
 <span kind="favorite-color favorite-fruit">orange</span>
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 11:27:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:47 UTC