ISSUE-10: Schema.org breadcrumb examples - properties should be per-link
Schema.org breadcrumb examples - properties should be per-link
- PENDING REVIEW
- Feedback on Schema.org
- Raised by:
- Dan Brickley
- Opened on:
- Discussion beginning in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2011Dec/0047.html ... in part about whether we should have one property or several.
Jeni in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2011Dec/0050.html points out that the value of a microdata itemprop is merge of the text values within the contained markup, and that the example is likely wrong.
"c. the examples are wrong and the itemprop should be on individual breadcrumb items" .
From Aaron in summary, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2011Dec/0056.html
"I was surprised to see John Panzer's parser results supporting Jeni
Tennison's option C - "the examples are wrong and the itemprop should
be on individual breadcrumb items" - not because it doesn't make sense,
but that the examples are consistently wrong across the board in regard to
schema.org microdata." ... "I checked on the main Google Breadcrumb article...
... and discovered there that, indeed, breadcrumbs are marked up individually,
both in RDFa and for (data-vocabulary.org) microdata."
"So my takeaways are two-fold:"
1. The schema.org examples are incorrect, and each individual breadcrumb should be declared with itemprop.
2. While schema.org describes the breadcrumb property as "[a] set of links" the expected property is text rather than URL, which at least technically affirms that breadcrumbs need not be links."
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Breadcrumb proposal (from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2012-10-04)
- Re: Breadcrumbs: Last Item Not Hyperlinked (from email@example.com on 2012-02-14)
- Re: Syntax for itemprop breadcrumb (from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2012-01-06)
- webschema-ISSUE-10 (breadcrumb examples): Schema.org breadcrumb examples - properties should be per-link [Feedback on Schema.org] (from email@example.com on 2012-01-06)
See later discussion here - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Nov/0027.html - and possible new design.Dan Brickley, 30 Jan 2013, 18:59:02
Display change log