W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Verbosity of microdata

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:25:52 +0000
Message-ID: <4F61C3B0.2030406@nag.co.uk>
To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 15/03/2012 09:47, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> On 15.3.2012 10:15, David Carlisle wrote:
>> I think the (or rather an) "html way" (as used by RDFa for
>> example) is to exercise the clause in html5 that allows other
>> specifications to extend it, and then just assert that (say)
>> its-locNote is a valid attribute of the extended specification.
> Hi David, thanks for insight. Could you please point me to the clause
> that allows this, I wasn't able to find?

whatwg version single page 2.2.3 extensibility (presumably in other
versions too but that was easier to search)


(big doc, slow link!!)

> When vendor-neutral extensions to this specification are needed,
> either this specification can be updated accordingly, or an
> extension specification can be written that overrides the
> requirements in this specification. When someone applying this
> specification to their activities decides that they will recognize
> the requirements of such an extension specification, it becomes an
> applicable specification for the purposes of conformance requirements
> in this specification.

back to you:

> Also there will be problem with such approach when page is going to
> be validated. Normal HTML5 validator would refuse page with its-
> attributes.

yes sure, although some validators at least allow schema to be uploaded
it's tricky to get that right and merge in a schema for just the extra
bits into the html5 validation, especially if that's using a lot of
custom code rather than just a schema. Time will tell....

> Shouldn't the conformance be criteria lifted then and allow any attribute
> named prefix-* (except aria- which can be checked more rigorously)?

well there's already data-. I'd have some sympathy with extending that a
bit but on the other hand I can see people not wanting it trivial for
systems to claim pages are valid if they just have a basic skeleton
document and all the actual text and images are really in
semi-proprietary mso-zzzz attributes only understood by one browser.
(No one would do that, would they?.....)

> Jirka

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 10:26:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:50 UTC