- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:47:53 +0000
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>
On 18 November 2013 13:36, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:44:39 +0800, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > >> schema.org has enumerated types, which might be better to use than text >> with a list of expected strings. > > > Yes, that was what I was thinking... We should make that change. I'm not so convinced yet. There are quite a lot of values, and given schema.org's flat namespace we would have to consider each term as _the_ schema.org use of that word. e.g. MathML; sound; captions; latex; timing etc. would become http://schema.org/sound ... My inclination (especially having seen the variety of views earlier in these discussions) is that allowing Text and also allowing values represented by URL might be the right combination. Schema.org's enumerations work best for short, rigid, fixed lists that won't evolve or get extended... Dan
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 20:48:23 UTC