Hi Anastasia, Thanks for putting this together.
I think it makes sense to use the 'meta' element to add our metadata. The thing I don't like about the schema.org strategy is the requirement of adding a wrapping element for image tags. I always prefer to decorate the existing markup rather than modify it. That being said, I think we should go the schema.org route because it feels like it communicates the information we are trying to add more clearly. Michelle On 2012-04-03, at 9:34 AM, Cheetham, Anastasia wrote: > > In considering how we're going to add Access For All metadata to OERs > authored using the OER Commons authoring tool, I've taken a look at > microformats and schema.org microdata. I've drafted wiki pages describing how > these two options might be used: > > schema.org microdata: > > http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Proposal+-+Access+For+All+Properties+for+schema.org+Classes > > microformats: > > http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Proposal+-+Access+For+All+microformat > > The microformat option looks tidier and simpler on the surface (it's strictly > classnames added to HTML elements, whereas the schema.org approach requires > additional markup), but on closer examination I think the schema.org approach > provides a better solution (notes on the wiki pages should help elaborate on > why). I look forward to hearing other thoughts. > > These are just drafts, and I would really love it if we could pick this apart > and revise and refine. > > > -- > Anastasia Cheetham Inclusive Design Research Centre > [email protected] Inclusive Design Institute > OCAD University > > _______________________________________________________ > fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, > see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
_______________________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
