On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Eric Devine wrote:
>
> 1. Section 5.5.1 of the Microdata spec prescribes how microdata should
> be respresented as JSON, but it does provide a MIME type. I'm writing a
> REST API that I would like to be able to return JSON in microdata
> format, but I need the client to exp
I found the answer to my first question "application/microdata+json" from
W3C, but I would still appreciate feed back on my second question below.
Thanks,
Eric
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Eric Devine wrote:
> 1. Section 5.5.1 of the Microdata spec prescribes how microdata should be
> res
Le 30 mai 2013 à 12:39, Michael[tm] Smith a écrit :
> Alex or somebody else writes up an alternative API proposal they can be
> happier with, it seems unlikely they're going to be re-implementing
> anything based on the current Microdata API spec.
In the process, if it ever happens, I would love
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> +Ojan, +Alex
>
> Jirka Kosek , 2013-05-14 17:22 +0200:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > are there any plans to change Microdata API? From the following
> > conversation between Chromium developers it's not clear to me whether
> > they consider API itse
+Ojan, +Alex
Jirka Kosek , 2013-05-14 17:22 +0200:
> Hi,
>
> are there any plans to change Microdata API? From the following
> conversation between Chromium developers it's not clear to me whether
> they consider API itself bad or only their implementation.
>
> https://groups.google.com/a/chrom
On Tue, 14 May 2013, Jirka Kosek wrote:
>
> are there any plans to change Microdata API? From the following
> conversation between Chromium developers it's not clear to me whether
> they consider API itself bad or only their implementation.
>
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 22:04:41 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote:
I changed the spec as you suggest.
Thanks!
--
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011, David Karger wrote:
>
> One natural way to represent a collection of structured items is in an
> html table. this can coexist with microdata, by using
> and tags. But by ignoring the structure of the table,
> this creates a lot of redundant attribute specification.
>
>
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> It seems that this may be a useful problem to solve in Microdata. We
> can expose either an attribute or a privileged property name for the
> object's "name"/"title"/"string representation". Then, when using the
> .items accessor, objects can be r
On Sat, 9 Jul 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 01:19:02 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Jul 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> > >
> > > Step 11 is "If current has an itemprop attribute specified, add it
> > > to results." but should be "If current has one or more prope
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 7:47 PM, David Karger wrote:
> One natural way to represent a collection of structured items is in an html
> table. this can coexist with microdata, by using and itemprop> tags. But by ignoring the structure of the table, this creates a
> lot of redundant attribute spec
On 09/08/11 20:48, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Rob Crowther wrote:
Correct. Browsers aren't expected to know about the vocabularies, let
alone validate them.
Thanks. I think this could be made more clear in the spec.
However if I remove itemscope from the element
the Opera beta
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Rob Crowther wrote:
>
> I just want to confirm that my understanding of this is correct:
> getItems() will return a NodeList of top level microdata items and this
> is irrespective of whether or not the items are actually valid in terms
> of their type? That is, it is the de
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:01:37 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
As for the solution, are you suggesting that .itemValue return a special
object which is like HTMLElement in all regards except for how it
toString()s?
Yes.
Currently, it's spe
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> There is no items IDL attribute, do you mean getItems() or .itemValue
> perhaps?
Yes, sorry.
> I take it the problem is with code like this:
>
> Foo
> Barsson
>
> var p = document.getItems("person")[0];
> alert(p.properties.namedItem(
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:49:44 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
Some IRC discussion this morning concerned the scenario where an API
starts by exposing a property as a string, but later wants to change
it to be a complex object.
This appears to be a reasonably common scenario. For example, a
voca
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 22:33 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > The JSON algorithm now ends the crawl when it hits a loop, and
> > replaces the offending duplicate item with the string "ERROR".
> >
> > The RDF algorithm preserves the loops, since doing so is
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:41:18 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 22:33 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
The JSON algorithm now ends the crawl when it hits a loop, and replaces
the offending duplicate item with the string "ERROR".
The RDF algorithm preserves the loops, since doing so is
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 22:33 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
> The JSON algorithm now ends the crawl when it hits a loop, and replaces
> the offending duplicate item with the string "ERROR".
>
> The RDF algorithm preserves the loops, since doing so is possible with
> RDF. Turns out the algorithm almost
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 01:19:02 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
Step 11 is "If current has an itemprop attribute specified, add it to
results." but should be "If current has one or more property names, add
it to results." Property names are defined in
http:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>
> Step 11 is "If current has an itemprop attribute specified, add it to
> results." but should be "If current has one or more property names, add
> it to results." Property names are defined in
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/mu
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:31:49 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:33:14 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Tomasz Jamroszczak wrote:
> >
> > I've been looking into Microdata specification and it struck me,
> > that crawling
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:33:14 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Tomasz Jamroszczak wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been looking into Microdata specification and it struck me,
> > > that crawling algorithm is so complex, when it comes to expre
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:33:14 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Tomasz Jamroszczak wrote:
I've been looking into Microdata specification and it struck me, that
crawling algorithm is so complex, when it comes to expressing simple
ideas. I think that foremost the algorithm should be
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:58:16 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote:
I'd like at some point to introduce some sort of "semantic" textContent
that handles , , , dir="", , , space-
collapsing, and newline elimination, but there hasn't been much
enthusiasm
around the idea, and it's not clear what else it wou
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:24:46 +0100, Jeremy Keith
wrote:
Hixie wrote:
Finally on vCard, the final part of the extraction algorithm goes to
great trouble to guess what is the family name and what is the given
name. This guess will be broken for transliterated east Asian names
(CJKV that I know
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > I've made it redirect to the spec.
>
> Could you say that the URL *should* provide human-readable information
> about the vocabulary? We all know the problems with having
> centrally-stored mach
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I've made it redirect to the spec.
Could you say that the URL *should* provide human-readable information
about the vocabulary? We all know the problems with having
centrally-stored machine-readable data about your specs
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> I've made it redirect to the spec.
Could you say that the URL *should* provide human-readable information
about the vocabulary? We all know the problems with having
centrally-stored machine-readable data about your specs, but
encouraging the
Hixie wrote:
Finally on vCard, the final part of the extraction algorithm goes to
great trouble to guess what is the family name and what is the given
name. This guess will be broken for transliterated east Asian names
(CJKV that I know of, maybe others too). Just saying. Also, why is it
importan
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:34:12 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
The itemref mechanism allows creating arbitrary graphs of items, rather
than
the tree of items that is the intended microdata model (right?). Even
though
my default reacti
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> The itemref mechanism allows creating arbitrary graphs of items, rather than
> the tree of items that is the intended microdata model (right?). Even though
> my default reaction to graphs is "oh cool", for microdata when the domain
> mode
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:27:39 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:23:54 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
Why are the algorithms for extracting RDF gone? All that's left is the
book example with the equivalent Turtle, but it would be nice if it
were actually defined ho
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:23:54 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
Why are the algorithms for extracting RDF gone? All that's left is the
book example with the equivalent Turtle, but it would be nice if it were
actually defined how to extract RDF. The same for the JSON stuff, was
that no good?
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>
> Is there a reason why HTMLPropertyCollection.namedItem unlike some other
> collections' .namedItem don't return an element if there is only 1
> element in the collection at the time the method is called? Perhaps this
> is legacy quirks that we do
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:53:46 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
Shouldn't namedItem [6] be namedItems? Code like .namedItem().item(0)
would be quite confusing.
[6]
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/infrastructure.html#dom-htmlpr
On Aug 22, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Based on some of the feedback on Microdata recently, e.g.:
http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/124
...and a number of e-mails sent to this list and the W3C lists, I am
going
to try some tweaks to the Microdata syntax. Google has kindly
of
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:43:58 +0200, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:29:06 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
I've found two related things that are a bit problematic. First,
because
itemprops are only associated with ancestor item e
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:29:06 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
I've found two related things that are a bit problematic. First, because
itemprops are only associated with ancestor item elements or via the
subject attribute, it's always necessary to find o
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>
> I've found two related things that are a bit problematic. First, because
> itemprops are only associated with ancestor item elements or via the
> subject attribute, it's always necessary to find or create a separate
> element for the item. This
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 23:51:48 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
Based on some of the feedback on Microdata recently, e.g.:
http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/124
...and a number of e-mails sent to this list and the W3C lists, I am
going
to try some tweaks to the Microdata syntax. Google has
On Saturday, August 22, 2009, Eduard Pascual wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>> Based on some of the feedback on Microdata recently, e.g.:
>>
>> http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/124
>>
>> ...and a number of e-mails sent to this list and the W3C lists, I am g
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> Based on some of the feedback on Microdata recently, e.g.:
>
> http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/124
>
> ...and a number of e-mails sent to this list and the W3C lists, I am going
> to try some tweaks to the Microdata syntax. Google has
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Martin McEvoy wrote:
> Hello All
>
> I have been working on a new proposal for HTML 5 Microdata, I thought you
> might all like to take a look at what I have come up with so far.
>
> please visit http://weborganics.co.uk/test/microdata.html
>
> Any feed back would be
Hello Ian
Ian Hickson wrote:
I'm definitely against any in-page indirection mechanism, because we have
seen with XML Namespaces (and with RDFa) that prefixes are simply a huge
source of problems.
They are indeed, XML namespaces fixed one problem calling different
things by the same name bu
(I trimmed public-html from the CC list to avoid cross-posting, and
because the whatwg list has had most of the traffic on this topic so far;
please feel free to forward this to public-html if you would rather
discuss that there instead.)
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Peter Mika wrote:
>
> The use of
Fair point. Just brainstorming here: how about making about an attribute?
http://";>
Name: Amanda
We still have two identifiers, but at least giving the URI is simplified.
Best,
Peter
Julian Reschke wrote:
Peter Mika wrote:
Hi All,
I've been taking a closer look at microdata. While I li
Yes, #2 and #4 are quite related in that they both concern the
abbreviation mechanism for URIs and might be considered alternative
proposals.
On the other hand, on #4, you are opening the gate to independent
entities (be them organizations or individuals) to define the prefixes
they would be u
Peter Mika wrote:
Hi All,
I've been taking a closer look at microdata. While I like the proposal
in general, in particular the chance to unite microformat style
annotations with some of the Semantic Web formalism (such as URIs for
objects), there are still a number of points that I feel could
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Peter Mika wrote:
> [...]
> #2
>
> The other area that could be possibly improved is the connection of type
> identifiers with ontologies on the web. I would actually like the notion of
> reverse domain names if
>
> -- there would be an explicit agreement that they
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
It's difficult to tell where one should comment on the so-called
microdata use cases. I'm forced to send to multiple mailing lists.
Please don't cross-post to the WHATWG list and other lists -- you may pick
either one, I rea
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
> It's difficult to tell where one should comment on the so-called
> microdata use cases. I'm forced to send to multiple mailing lists.
Please don't cross-post to the WHATWG list and other lists -- you may pick
either one, I read all of them. (Cross-po
52 matches
Mail list logo
