> 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
> 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
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
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
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo