Re: [a11y-metadata-project] Re: Accessibility for schema.org Re: Updated Wiki to cover proposal

I'm with Dan on this. In practice there are lots of existing values and
the potential for many future values; it's not feasible to have a fixed
enumeration that encompasses them all.

On 11/18/13 12:47 PM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com> wrote:

>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
>
>-- 
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>email to a11y-metadata-project+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>To post to this group, send email to
>a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2013 08:00:50 UTC