On 02/13/2012 03:27 AM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
> Microdata items can be nested, so I don't see
a problem with users or
> templates providing a mapping to more specific schemas like those of
>
schema.org. Clashes of user-provided itemtypes with those used for
> editing purposes need to be prevented in the parser, but that is doable.
> Consumers are free to ignore itemtypes they don't know about, which is
> what Google etc are doing afaik- and what also motivated them to set up
>
schema.org in the first place.
Hmmm... wait now I'm confused, are we talking
about a Microdata DOM
output that the Parser generates from WikiText. Or a completely tailored
one where the template itself is authored in Microdata so that it can
describe how a Visual Editor should edit it?
I considered the case where users manually add a microdata item in a
template or page. The itemtype in that case can be anything, but would
most likely be a standard type.
Then I'm saying that I don't like
itemtype being abused to be the template name and itemname being abused
to be the template argument name and instead of the template name and
parameter names being abused as the schema of the template having a more
verbose proper set of Microdata to describe it:
Could you elaborate why you consider one use of itemtype an abuse, while
the other would be fine?
I'm not quite sure if we're trying to describe
templates in a way that
the VisualEditor can extract the parameters from, edit them inline (if
possible), or describe the output of a template in a way that can be
read by machines for some separate purpose.
We are trying to address all three with the same mechanism. In
particular, we are trying to aid the discover of semantics associated
with (many) template parameters for the benefit of search engines or
projects like DBPedia and WikiData.
Gabriel