W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > June 2012

Re: additionalType property, vs extending Microdata syntax for multiple types

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:54:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFpiHBKu8PA60Z0xarTYrXX6aLbnMvjK5GNHNhuLpWffbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: "Sandhaus, Evan" <sandhes@nytimes.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org Vocabs" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 18 June 2012 18:44, Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> I still cannot understand, why should we solve a syntax issue by adding a
> semantic property.

Because we - the parties on this list, including but not limited to
the schema.org partners - don't control the relevant standard syntax.
It is not ours to change. And when various of us have investigated
possibility of having Microdata be officially improved in this
direction, we have got pretty clear impression that it was unlikely to

As vocabulary maintainers, we are entirely free to add new terms to
our vocabulary. But if we go around re-inventing Microdata syntax
without getting consensus, buy-in and adoption from the HTML/WHATWG
community, browser makers etc., we risk causing a lot of upset.
Vocabulary maintainers don't get to change the underlying syntax
without dialog and debate. Which is the thing that takes time
(sometimes months and years rather than days and weeks). If some of us
seem impatient to move along, it's because sometimes years turn into
decades, ...

> Let's just say we support another microdata-like syntax, it's much easier.

Yes - http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-lite/ is the obvious candidate here.
The 'additionalType' mechanism is a patch for those who are already
committed to Microdata deployment.

I don't see any reason to waste a lot of time trying to make an
unoficial Microdata fork into behaving the same way RDFa Lite already


Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 16:55:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:46 UTC