Shared publicly  - 
7
2
Michael Ellerman's profile photoManu Sporny's profile photoJoel Neuenhaus's profile photoDouglas Fils's profile photo
13 comments
 
Would be nice if Blogger supported this in some decently obvious manner. Being the same parent company and all.
 
When you say "not well formed", are you referring to the example of the 'itemscope' attribute without a value? If so, that's valid HTML5:

 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/syntax.html#attributes-0

 "Empty attribute syntax: Just the attribute name. The value is implicitly the empty string."

In fact, I think empty attributes have been well-formed since the beginning, no? Or was it something else?

I'll catch you on IM for some other reasons why publishers might like schema.org and G+ in the future...
 
Was I supposed to see the snippet if I posted this link from the Google+ Android client? (I didn't) Or is that just a consequence of the Android client not doing snippets in general?
 
+DeWitt Clinton I mean not “well-formed” in the technical XML sense. I understand about the HTML5 rules and that’s just fine, but my homegrown publishing system is XML-based.
 
What's safe practice these days for embedding html5 in XHTML pages?
 
Oh, right. I'm not sure if schema.org discusses XHTML at all. Everything I've seen on schema refers only to microdata in HTML5. In fact, I'm not even sure if XHTML is making the '5' leap, though I admittedly haven't looked.

That said, I wonder if it's worth adding a parallel XML-friendly set of docs to schema.org. Thoughts?
 
+DeWitt Clinton heh, I just typed “well-formed itemscope” into some search engine or other and there was the answer. The only thing you have to do is add the ="" on itemscope.
 
+Tzafrir Rehan Er, why? HTML5 isn’t trying to be XML-friendly and XML isn’t designed for embedding un-XML-friendly data. I suspect mixing them is not worth the trouble.
 
+Tim Bray (re: itemscope="") Which is what happens implicitly with an empty attribute (the DOM will present an attribute value of the empty string), but I'm wondering if schema.org could be made less off-putting to the XHTML community by simply having a "show me valid XML" switch for their examples. Your reaction probably isn't unique.

(If it isn't obvious, I'm now sold on the value of schema, though I was originally on the fence, and would like to see it do everything it needs to in order to succeed.)
 
+Tim Bray rightly so. I was just wondering, since a lot of websites are currently using XHTML and are told "add these tags to make your web thing work better", if there's any proper way of doing it without digging into each snippet and figuring out the quirks.
 
Cool. But G+ works it out right for my blog anyway (WP), with no extra markup, so why would I bother? :-)
 
Keep in mind that RDFa 1.1 Lite will be supported by schema.org as well in the near future:

http://blog.schema.org/2011/11/using-rdfa-11-lite-with-schemaorg.html

Your blog description would be this in RDFa 1.1:

<body vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="Blog">
...
<h1 property="name">...</h1>
<p property="description">...</p>

The benefit is that if you use RDFa 1.1, you can also use Facebook OpenGraph markup (which is really just RDFa) at the top of your page as well and use the same simple markup language to target both Facebook and Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/Yandex.
Add a comment...