[whatwg] Proposal: allow itemid to record multiple identifiers for an item

Hi WHATWG, Over on a schema.org related list [1] there has been a discussion about making identifiers for bibliographic items (books, articles, etc) available in microdata using itemid. The use case is well described in the dev edition, with this example [2]: dl itemscope

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: allow itemid to record multiple identifiers for an item

Ian, Thanks very much for the guidance re: using meta and link. I like both solutions quite a bit better than leaning more on itemid for this use case. Was the id itemprop you used in your examples a hypothetical property that would need to be defined at schema.org or elsewhere, or did you find

[whatwg] itemtypes from same vocabulary

Hi all, 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 use the same vocabulary. For example,

Re: [whatwg] itemtypes from same vocabulary

Thanks for the further pointer Lin. I can see that the change request to allow multiple itemtypes came from John Giannandrea (Google), and specifically concerned schema.org. In John's email [1] he proposed limiting multiple types to being from the same origin domain, not the same vocabulary as is

[whatwg] rel=bookmark

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone can provide any information, or a pointer to previous discussion, about why the bookmark link relation can't be used with the element [1]. The topic has come up recently on the IETF link-relations discussion list [2] where a new link relation has been

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Ed Summers <e...@pobox.com> wrote: > > I guess I'll put a contribution together that adjusts rel="bookmark" and see > how it fares. Thanks for the feedback everyone. I started with an issue ticket [1] that references this conversation i

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

Hi Kevin, > On Aug 5, 2017, at 9:19 PM, Kevin Marks wrote: > > That use case sounds more like rel="canonical" You weren't the only one (myself included) who thought that. Michael Nelson, one of the authors if the identifier I-D, just wrote a blog post explaining why not

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Marks wrote: > > See also http://microformats.org/wiki/sharelink-formats for a (recent) > related use case > > On 8 Aug 2017 7:01 pm, "Kevin Marks" wrote: > >> This sounds like what we use uid for in microformats

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

Hi Domenic, > On Aug 5, 2017, at 9:19 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > (Remember to use the HTML Standard, located at > https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#link-type-bookmark, not any > forks of it.) Oops, my bad! Luckily the definition looks the same so I think

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

Hi Phil, > On Aug 6, 2017, at 6:13 AM, Philipp Serafin wrote: > > As the IETF usecase seems to be about permalinks, is there any requirement > for rel=canonical regarding validity in the future? Yes, the quality of persistence is why I thought rel=bookmark worked best,