W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > February 2016

Re: itemscope issue

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:09:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=5W-HfDfEDXY6Nb7uGQUGjiFXeGdv9mOfXf54pdhVcQXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shujia Liu <liushujia@outlook.com>
Cc: "public-schemaorg@w3.org" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
On 16 February 2016 at 18:03, Shujia Liu <liushujia@outlook.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I was learning how to use schema.org to mark up my webpage. And I find
> something interesting that why we need "itemscope" since we have "itemtype".
> I mean, each "itemscope" label is followed by an "itemtype" label. Can I
> just ignore the "itemscope" label.

When using Microdata syntax (itemscope itemtype itemprop etc), it is
best to follow the Microdata rules fully, and include the "itemscope"
attribute even if it seems useless.

A few years ago there were some big debates about whether to use
Microdata or the related earlier standard, RDFa. RDFa doesn't have a
direct equivalent to itemscope. In recent years we have tried to
include both Microdata and RDFa examples on the schema.org site, as
well as examples written in JSON-LD.

Received on Friday, 19 February 2016 14:10:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:12:23 UTC