- From: Alexander Botero-Lowry <alexbl@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:08:57 -0700
- To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Cc: Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, "jasnell@gmail.com" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru> > wrote: >> >> Well, validators developers will not be very happy with this change. >> However, if it happens, I prefer 'type' name, because 'additionalType' >> implies there are other, non-additional ones. > > > I disagree. 'type' would be misleading and imply that all types are set by > this property, when it is not the case. Microdata and RDFa have simpler ways > of setting the types of a data item. This new property should be used > sparingly and for cases where the default microdata itemtype attribute is > not sufficient. Note that it does not make much sense to be used in RDFa > since mixing vocabularies for types is natively supported. > +1 It's important to be explicit about additionalness because of the requirement for the itemtype to be schema.org for this to work. <div itemscope> <link itemprop="type" href="http://schema.org/Product"> </div> is not equivalent to: <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product"></div> Indeed, the first is not semantically useful, but the second is. alex
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 21:09:27 UTC