13370 2011-07-26 14:47:44 +0000 What authoring errors do the microdata value conformance constraints help catch? 2011-08-04 05:05:20 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML Microdata (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#values P3 normal --- 1 contributor ian ian mike philipj public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 51487 0 contributor 2011-07-26 14:47:44 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#values Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#values Comment: What authoring errors do the microdata value conformance constraints help catch? Posted from: 83.218.67.122 by philipj@opera.com User agent: Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux x86_64; U; Edition Next; en) Presto/2.9.181 Version/12.00 51489 1 philipj 2011-07-26 15:05:26 +0000 """If a property's value is an absolute URL, the property must be specified using a URL property element. If a property's value represents a date, time, or global date and time, the property must be specified using the datetime attribute of a time element.""" I'm writing some patches for validator.nu to do microdata validation, but adding these constraints seems like a bad idea as they could raise errors for rather sane usage: 1. Someone marks up comments or dialog using microdata. One reply is given in the form of a URL, marked up as <div itemprop="comment">http://lmgtfy.com/?q=html</div> by the template. 2. A book about the moon landing is called "1969-06-20" and is marked up using http://schema.org/Book: <span itemprop="name">1969-06-20</span>. 51577 2 philipj 2011-07-27 21:19:09 +0000 http://bugzilla.validator.nu/show_bug.cgi?id=850 51957 3 ian 2011-08-02 06:56:00 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Partially Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: You're misunderstanding the requirement. This is not a computer-checkable conformance requirement in the absence of information about the vocabulary. A string that happens to be interpretable as a URL isn't necessarily a URL. A sequence of numbers and dashes that happens to be interpretable as a date isn't necessarily a date. The requirement is intended to be used in conjunction with a vocabulary. If you know a particular property takes a URL, then it has to be in a URL element. I've added some prose to try to help explain this better. 51958 4 contributor 2011-08-02 06:56:31 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r6343. Check-in comment: Now both pedancy and simplicity are losing in the race for clarity. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6342&to=6343 51978 5 philipj 2011-08-02 09:48:50 +0000 Ah, thanks for clarifying that! 52911 6 mike 2011-08-04 05:05:20 +0000 mass-move component to LC1