- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:50:51 +0200
Hi, There are already two demos of converting Microdata to other formats which I found quite useful [1]. I've taken a closer look at the Microdata DOM API and hacked up a somewhat working JavaScript implementation of it [2]. A few issues came up in the process: To avoid total confusion I'll use item-property and DOM-property to disambiguate. The spec says that "properties can also themselves be groups of name-value pairs", but this isn't exposed in a very convenient way in the DOM API. The 'properties' DOM-property is a HTMLPropertyCollection of all associated elements. Discovering if the item-property value is a plain string or an item seems to require item.hasAttribute('item'), which seems out of place when everything else has been so neatly reflected. (Just checking item.item won't work if the item attribute is empty.) Also, the 'contents' DOM-property is always the item-property value except in the case where the item-property is another item -- in that case it is something random like .href or .textContent depending on the element type. I think it would be better if the DOM-property were simply called 'value' (the spec does talk about name-value pairs after all) and corresponded more exactly to 'property value' [3]. Elements that have no 'property names' [4] should return null and otherwise elements with an 'item' attribute should return itself, although I don't think it should be writable in that case. One might also/otherwise consider adding a valueType DOM-property which could be 'string', 'item' or something similar. One example [5] uses document.items[item].names but document.items isn't defined anywhere. I assume this is an oversight and that it is equivalent to document.getItems() Further, names is a member of HTMLPropertyCollection, so document.items[item].properties.names is probably intended instead of document.items[item].names. Assuming this the example actually produces the output it claims to. Shouldn't namedItem [6] be namedItems? Code like .namedItem().item(0) would be quite confusing. Also, RadioNodeList should be PropertyNodeList. I think many will wonder why item and itemprop can't be given on a single element for compactness: <span item="org.example.fruit" itemprop="org.example.name">Apple</span>s and <span item="org.example.fruit" itemprop="org.example.name">Orange</span>s don't compare well. Allowing this would complicate the definition of 'corresponding item' [7], but I think that might be acceptable. I suggest either allowing it or adding a note explaining why it isn't allowed and giving examples of alternative techniques. [1] http://philip.html5.org/demos/microdata/demo.html http://james.html5.org/microdata/ [2] http://gitorious.org/microdatajs/microdatajs/blobs/0032bac85ceaf4fd2a6379b357a225f74c89d61f/microdata.js [3] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#concept-property-value [4] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#property-names [5] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#using-the-microdata-dom-api [6] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/infrastructure.html#dom-htmlpropertycollection-nameditem [7] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html#concept-item-corresponding -- Philip J?genstedt Doing Microdata just for fun, not for Opera Software.
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 15:50:51 UTC