- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:02:49 +0100
- To: "Sandhaus, Evan" <sandhes@nytimes.com>
- Cc: public-vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 8 March 2012 21:46, Sandhaus, Evan <sandhes@nytimes.com> wrote: > This all sounds great, I like the idea of a text property. > > Quick question though - will the articleBody & reviewBody attributes be removed/deprecated? > > As this would require changes to The NYT implementation and the IPTC rNews schema.org documentation, I suggest that we not remove/deprecate these properties. Thanks for the review, Evan. In general I don't think "deprecate" is something we'll ever be doing much of around here. Once we've encouraged the public to adopt some markup, I think we have to accept that it'll be "out there" indefinitely. At some point certain things will probably get marked as 'old fashioned' (archaic), or as synonyms for a more preferred form. But it's important to respect when markup is published in good faith, and not expect publishers to be constantly updating content to the latest preferred vocabulary flavour. The general approach of schema.org is to try to make things easy on publishers, even if this pushes some burden onto consumers (e.g. the search engines). So if we introduce synonyms and generalisations, the burden is on consumers to accept both variants, rather than on publishers to update all their content. Seeing your subsequent exchange with Will, it sounds like marking these a 'synonym' may work here. It's not core to the proposal but seems worthwhile, to improve our documentation on how all these similar-sounding properties relate to each other. cheers, Dan
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 21:03:17 UTC