On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Eric Devine wrote:
1. Section 5.5.1 of the Microdata spec prescribes how microdata should
be respresented as JSON, but it does provide a MIME type. I'm writing a
REST API that I would like to be able to return JSON in microdata
format, but I need the client to
I found the answer to my first question application/microdata+json from
W3C, but I would still appreciate feed back on my second question below.
Thanks,
Eric
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Eric Devine devin...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Section 5.5.1 of the Microdata spec prescribes how microdata
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Ed Summers wrote:
I am looking for some guidance about the use of multiple itemtypes in
microdata [1], specifically the phrase defined to use the same
vocabulary in:
The item types must all be types defined in applicable specifications
and must all be defined to
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
+Ojan, +Alex
Jirka Kosek ji...@kosek.cz, 2013-05-14 17:22 +0200:
Hi,
are there any plans to change Microdata API? From the following
conversation between Chromium developers it's not clear to me whether
they
Le 30 mai 2013 à 12:39, Michael[tm] Smith a écrit :
Alex or somebody else writes up an alternative API proposal they can be
happier with, it seems unlikely they're going to be re-implementing
anything based on the current Microdata API spec.
In the process, if it ever happens, I would love
+Ojan, +Alex
Jirka Kosek ji...@kosek.cz, 2013-05-14 17:22 +0200:
Hi,
are there any plans to change Microdata API? From the following
conversation between Chromium developers it's not clear to me whether
they consider API itself bad or only their implementation.
Hi,
are there any plans to change Microdata API? From the following
conversation between Chromium developers it's not clear to me whether
they consider API itself bad or only their implementation.
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!topic/blink-dev/b54nW_mGSVU
Any insight
XHTML5 microdata itemprop needs to clarify how experimental REST IRI is
changed to release IRI. To relate with living standard unlike W3 model,
within CURIE, if prefix lic is used for http://localhost/license, the prefix
could be redefined using one central profile page, like RDFa does define
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 22:04:41 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I changed the spec as you suggest.
Thanks!
--
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
On Sat, 9 Jul 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 01:19:02 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
Step 11 is If current has an itemprop attribute specified, add it
to results. but should be If current has one or more
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
It seems that this may be a useful problem to solve in Microdata. We
can expose either an attribute or a privileged property name for the
object's name/title/string representation. Then, when using the
.items accessor, objects can be returned
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011, David Karger wrote:
One natural way to represent a collection of structured items is in an
html table. this can coexist with microdata, by using tr itemscope
and td itemprop tags. But by ignoring the structure of the table,
this creates a lot of redundant attribute
One natural way to represent a collection of structured items is in an
html table. this can coexist with microdata, by using tr itemscope
and td itemprop tags. But by ignoring the structure of the table,
this creates a lot of redundant attribute specification.
It would yield cleaner markup
On 09/08/11 20:48, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Rob Crowther wrote:
Correct. Browsers aren't expected to know about the vocabularies, let
alone validate them.
Thanks. I think this could be made more clear in the spec.
However if I remove itemscope from the element
the Opera
I just want to confirm that my understanding of this is correct:
getItems() will return a NodeList of top level microdata items and this
is irrespective of whether or not the items are actually valid in terms
of their type? That is, it is the developer's responsibility to confirm
that the
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Rob Crowther wrote:
I just want to confirm that my understanding of this is correct:
getItems() will return a NodeList of top level microdata items and this
is irrespective of whether or not the items are actually valid in terms
of their type? That is, it is the
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:01:37 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
As for the solution, are you suggesting that .itemValue return a special
object which is like HTMLElement in all regards except for how it
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:49:44 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Some IRC discussion this morning concerned the scenario where an API
starts by exposing a property as a string, but later wants to change
it to be a complex object.
This appears to be a reasonably common scenario.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com wrote:
There is no items IDL attribute, do you mean getItems() or .itemValue
perhaps?
Yes, sorry.
I take it the problem is with code like this:
div itemscope itemtype=personspan itemprop=nameFoo
Barsson/span/div
script
Some IRC discussion this morning concerned the scenario where an API
starts by exposing a property as a string, but later wants to change
it to be a complex object.
This appears to be a reasonably common scenario. For example, a
vocabulary with a name property may start with it being a string,
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 22:33 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
The JSON algorithm now ends the crawl when it hits a loop, and replaces
the offending duplicate item with the string ERROR.
The RDF algorithm preserves the loops, since doing so is possible with
RDF. Turns out the algorithm almost did
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:41:18 +0200, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 22:33 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
The JSON algorithm now ends the crawl when it hits a loop, and replaces
the offending duplicate item with the string ERROR.
The RDF algorithm preserves the loops,
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 22:33 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
The JSON algorithm now ends the crawl when it hits a loop, and
replaces the offending duplicate item with the string ERROR.
The RDF algorithm preserves the loops, since doing so is possible
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 01:19:02 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
Step 11 is If current has an itemprop attribute specified, add it to
results. but should be If current has one or more property names, add
it to results. Property names are
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:33:14 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Tomasz Jamroszczak wrote:
I've been looking into Microdata specification and it struck me, that
crawling algorithm is so complex, when it comes to expressing simple
ideas. I think that foremost the
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:31:49 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:33:14 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Tomasz Jamroszczak wrote:
I've been looking into Microdata specification and it struck
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Tomasz Jamroszczak wrote:
I've been looking into Microdata specification and it struck me, that
crawling algorithm is so complex, when it comes to expressing simple
ideas. I think that foremost the algorithm should be described in the
specification with explanation
A question came up in the Schema.org discussion group today:
http://groups.google.com/group/schemaorg-discussion/browse_thread/thread/69b733066ae7?pli=1
The question was how to fix http://www.2gc.co.uk/a2gc-people to link
together properties that were in different parts of the document
Hello,
Reading
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html#microdata
Section '5.2.3 Names: the itemprop attribute' states something
important about Microdata's data model,
Within an item, the properties are unordered with respect to each
other, except for properties
Hi everybody, I originally intended to send this message to the
implementors list but seeing in the archives that there hasn't been
much activity there for the last couple of months, I'm sending this to
the general list. Well, basically I just wanted to announce that I've
just released (
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:24:46 +0100, Jeremy Keith jer...@adactio.com
wrote:
Hixie wrote:
Finally on vCard, the final part of the extraction algorithm goes to
great trouble to guess what is the family name and what is the given
name. This guess will be broken for transliterated east Asian
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:58:16 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I'd like at some point to introduce some sort of semantic textContent
that handles br, pre, bdo, dir=, img alt, del, space-
collapsing, and newline elimination, but there hasn't been much
enthusiasm
around the idea, and
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I've made it redirect to the spec.
Could you say that the URL *should* provide human-readable information
about the vocabulary? We all know the problems with having
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
I've been playing with the microdata DOM APIs again, continuing the
JavaScript experimental implementation
http://gitorious.org/microdatajs. It's not small or elegant, but at
least some spec issues have come up in the process.
What is the
Hixie wrote:
Finally on vCard, the final part of the extraction algorithm goes to
great trouble to guess what is the family name and what is the given
name. This guess will be broken for transliterated east Asian names
(CJKV that I know of, maybe others too). Just saying. Also, why is it
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I've made it redirect to the spec.
Could you say that the URL *should* provide human-readable information
about the vocabulary? We all know the problems with having
centrally-stored machine-readable data about your specs, but
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I've made it redirect to the spec.
Could you say that the URL *should* provide human-readable information
about the vocabulary? We all know the problems with having
centrally-stored machine-readable data
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/vocabs/current-work/#examples
The Jack Bauer example has validation issues (using http://validator.nu/)
My fix:
--- jack.html.orig 2009-11-17 11:03:03.0 +0100
+++ jack.html 2009-11-17 11:03:19.0 +0100
@@ -41,12 +41,12 @@
you're interested in
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:34:12 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
wrote:
The itemref mechanism allows creating arbitrary graphs of items, rather
than
the tree of items that is the intended microdata model
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:23:54 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
wrote:
Why are the algorithms for extracting RDF gone? All that's left is the
book example with the equivalent Turtle, but it would be nice if it were
actually defined how to extract RDF. The same for the JSON stuff,
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:27:39 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:23:54 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt
phil...@opera.com wrote:
Why are the algorithms for extracting RDF gone? All that's left is the
book example with the equivalent Turtle, but it would be
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com wrote:
The itemref mechanism allows creating arbitrary graphs of items, rather than
the tree of items that is the intended microdata model (right?). Even though
my default reaction to graphs is oh cool, for microdata when the
I've been playing with the microdata DOM APIs again, continuing the
JavaScript experimental implementation http://gitorious.org/microdatajs.
It's not small or elegant, but at least some spec issues have come up in
the process.
What is the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/microdata# URI? Just
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:53:46 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
Shouldn't namedItem [6] be namedItems? Code like .namedItem().item(0)
would be quite confusing.
[6]
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
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
On Aug 22, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Based on some of the feedback on Microdata recently, e.g.:
http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/124
...and a number of e-mails sent to this list and the W3C lists, I am
going
to try some tweaks to the Microdata syntax. Google has kindly
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:29:06 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
I've found two related things that are a bit problematic. First, because
itemprops are only associated with ancestor item elements or via the
subject attribute, it's always
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:43:58 +0200, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:29:06 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
I've found two related things that are a bit problematic. First,
because
itemprops are only
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 23:51:48 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Based on some of the feedback on Microdata recently, e.g.:
http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/124
...and a number of e-mails sent to this list and the W3C lists, I am
going
to try some tweaks to the Microdata
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
I've found two related things that are a bit problematic. First, because
itemprops are only associated with ancestor item elements or via the
subject attribute, it's always necessary to find or create a separate
element for the item. This
Based on some of the feedback on Microdata recently, e.g.:
http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/124
...and a number of e-mails sent to this list and the W3C lists, I am going
to try some tweaks to the Microdata syntax. Google has kindly offered to
provide usability testing resources so
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
Based on some of the feedback on Microdata recently, e.g.:
http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/124
...and a number of e-mails sent to this list and the W3C lists, I am going
to try some tweaks to the Microdata syntax.
On Saturday, August 22, 2009, Eduard Pascual herenva...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
Based on some of the feedback on Microdata recently, e.g.:
http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/124
...and a number of e-mails sent to this list and
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
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Martin McEvoymar...@weborganics.co.uk wrote:
Hello All
I have been working on a new proposal for HTML 5 Microdata, I thought you
might all like to take a look at what I have come up with so far.
please visit http://weborganics.co.uk/test/microdata.html
Any
(I trimmed public-html from the CC list to avoid cross-posting, and
because the whatwg list has had most of the traffic on this topic so far;
please feel free to forward this to public-html if you would rather
discuss that there instead.)
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Peter Mika wrote:
The use of a
Hello Ian
Ian Hickson wrote:
I'm definitely against any in-page indirection mechanism, because we have
seen with XML Namespaces (and with RDFa) that prefixes are simply a huge
source of problems.
They are indeed, XML namespaces fixed one problem calling different
things by the same name
Hi All,
I've been taking a closer look at microdata. While I like the proposal
in general, in particular the chance to unite microformat style
annotations with some of the Semantic Web formalism (such as URIs for
objects), there are still a number of points that I feel could be
improved. So
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Peter Mikapm...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
[...]
#2
The other area that could be possibly improved is the connection of type
identifiers with ontologies on the web. I would actually like the notion of
reverse domain names if
-- there would be an explicit
Yes, #2 and #4 are quite related in that they both concern the
abbreviation mechanism for URIs and might be considered alternative
proposals.
On the other hand, on #4, you are opening the gate to independent
entities (be them organizations or individuals) to define the prefixes
they would be
Fair point. Just brainstorming here: how about making about an attribute?
div item id=amanda about=http://;/div
pName: span subject=amanda itemprop=nameAmanda/span/p
We still have two identifiers, but at least giving the URI is simplified.
Best,
Peter
Julian Reschke wrote:
Peter Mika
It's difficult to tell where one should comment on the so-called
microdata use cases. I'm forced to send to multiple mailing lists.
Ian, I would like to see the original request that went into this
particular use case. In particular, I'd like to know who originated it,
so that we can ensure
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
It's difficult to tell where one should comment on the so-called
microdata use cases. I'm forced to send to multiple mailing lists.
Please don't cross-post to the WHATWG list and other lists -- you may pick
either one, I read all of them.
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
It's difficult to tell where one should comment on the so-called
microdata use cases. I'm forced to send to multiple mailing lists.
Please don't cross-post to the WHATWG list and other lists -- you may pick
either one, I
64 matches
Mail list logo
