- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:50:15 +0200
- To: "'W3C Web Schemas Task Force'" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 5 Aug 2014 at 14:07, Dan Brickley wrote: > On 4 August 2014 18:41, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> May I ask why? I thought the main feature of Microdata was its simplicity. >> Reverse properties are not exactly the simplest thing as this thread has shown. >> So why add them to Microdata? Why can't we simply recommend people to >> use RDFa for such "advanced" use cases? Do we want to evolve both formats >> in the future? >> >> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against adding this feature to Microdata at all. I'm >> just curious to understand the motivation and reasoning behind this effort. > > Imagine you're running a large site, probably with chunks of it built > by people whose roles and even employer may have changed. Imagine it > has embedded Microdata throughout, and you're wondering whether to add > some additional information to match new schema.org vocabulary. For > people in this situation, throwing in a few more itemprops (and > reverse-itemprops) is a relatively simple, low risk option. Ripping it > all out to replace with RDFa (or JSON-LD) is going to be a much more > expensive and daunting operation. Yeah, this is very true and a completely valid concern. Too bad Microdata decided to invent its own attribute names :-P > Hence the desire for a convention on > top of Microdata to match this (relatively niche and rarely used) > piece of syntax that RDFa and JSON-LD publishers already have. This is exactly the thing I me that triggered my question. If it is really "relatively niche and rarely used", do we really want to complicate everyone's live by introducing a new feature to Microdata? Or would it be more sensible to require those "few" who need it to invest a little more effort? > Schema.org markup is published on millions and millions and millions > of sites now, almost entirely in Microdata notation. While I have no > desire to try to mutate Microdata into feature parity with RDFa, this > is one place where agreeing a syntax-level extension of classic > Microdata seems to be worthwhile. Maybe. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 12:50:54 UTC