- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:12:01 +0200
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 28 July 2011 19:37, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > Nathan, > > On 28 Jul 2011, at 17:16, Nathan wrote: >> I want to create a scheme for microdata authors to use, I want it to be machine readable and dereferencable, where's the spec I should follow? > > > There's no spec for that (so far as I know): if you create a vocabulary, you write a document that explains how the vocabulary works, maybe supply a preview/validation tool like the Google Rich Snippets validation tool if you need to. That's pretty much in line with the microformats approach (which may be influential in this context): http://gmpg.org/xmdp/ > There's also (to explain the thinking behind the way microdata works here) no need for automated discovery of such a schema. A consuming application either has hard-wired understanding of the vocabularies that it finds in a page or not. If it doesn't, it must not follow any links (eg the item type) to get any more information in order to understand the vocabulary. I think the rationale there is that if they could, it might lead to a dependence of the behaviour of the application on network connectivity. Ew. Download & cache surely preferable. > Any code that consumes the vocabulary will naturally validate (and interpret, particularly to map to an appropriate data type) to whatever degree is useful. Makes sense, but I suspect any mention of validation will make the HTML folks run a mile - maybe draw back to just sanity checking :) Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Friday, 29 July 2011 09:13:00 UTC