- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:00:35 +0100
- To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Cc: Cosmin Paun <cpaun88@gmail.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 20 August 2013 13:57, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> Dear Cosmin:
> Thanks for pointing this out! As I wrote towards the end of my message: I think we should not add conceptual elements that are mere syntactical aids.
>
> As for a proposed table mechanism, I think this is taking a fundamentally wrong direction, since tables are mostly generated by iterating over database contents within a loop. Then, you typically use a template language (like Jinja2, Liquid, H20, ...), where adding the markup for each row is straightforward, e.g.:
>
> <table>
> {% for item in items %}
> <tr itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Painting">
> <td itemprop="name">{{item.name}}</td>
> <td><a itemprop="image" href="{{item.image_url}}">Image link</a></td>
> ...
> </tr>
> {% endfor %}
> </table>
>
> And since HTTP supports compression, the repetition of markup for properties and type information will hardly be noticeable.
>
> So I strongly suggest to not implement the proposal.
Do you mean the whole proposal, or the top-of-your head thoughts you
shared today?
One thing to emphasise about the original proposal is that it is
intended also to work with non-HTML tabular structures, such as CSV.
This btw makes it close in scope to
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-r2rml-20120927/
Dan
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 13:01:07 UTC