- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:24:34 +0200
- To: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, jasnell@gmail.com, public-vocabs@w3.org, "Martin Hepp (UniBW)" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Thanks everyone. Lots of mail! I have tried to make a brief summary of some of the points in the Web Schemas wiki, just a sketch of individual positions really rather than a summary of the whole debate. I also started there to write up details of a concrete proposal for 'additionalType'. http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/additionalTypeProposal ... Since nobody has volunteered to lead an effort to get Microdata syntax changed to support multiple types from different vocabularies, and on balance after reading thru all the debate, I think we should go for the new property approach. I'd like to make sure that we capture all the concerns people have in the Wiki and in the resulting property definition, and to give some thought to how validators and checkers ought to behave. Peter, Egor, others, ... can you live with a new property here? (one of 'additionalType' or 'type') Any preferences on name? cheers, Dan
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 17:25:06 UTC