listing microformat brainstorming

Revision as of 09:03, 8 October 2009 by Spiritquest (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)

Jump to: navigation, search

This is brainstorming for a hlisting microformat per the process.


proposed schema revisions

Revised Base Schema Elements (proposed, revised by Jay Myers 16:55, 29 Jun 2009 (UTC))


Please see hListing examples page for analysis of 80/20 use case for new attributes availability, condition and shipping. I believe condition should still be considered even though it misses the 80/20 use case mark (71.2% based on current analysis) as it is included in most product-specific data submission services (e.g., Yahoo Product Submit, Google Base).

Revised Base Schema Elements (proposed)

Items removed

  • +1 I'm tending to agree with the removal of version, as in practice it has not been necessary for either hReview or hListing.Tantek 17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Removal of item seems to be a mistake, as that is used to indicate the item itself being listed. E.g., a nested hProduct would be <p class='item hproduct'></p>. Removal appears to leave no way to include what is being listed. --BenWard 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • +1 completely agreed with Ben Ward's point. Wide use of hReview in the wild has shown that having an explicit "item" is both necessary and works in practice. Tantek 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed it was a mistake... left it out of my edits. Replaced. JayMyers 21:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Items added

  • Each of the following should cite the analysis made of real world examples that demonstrates the 80%+ use case need, otherwise, they should not be added. Tantek 17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Items changed:

  • In that case, an algorithm should be provided for how to determine the hCard for the lister, if no explicit lister is given. Tantek 17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Isn't the instruction above ("buyer/seller is assumed to be the site where the microformat exists" itself an algorithm? So, if has an item for sale and lister isn't specified, you use the domain of the web page containing the markup to identify the seller as "" --Kavi, 6 July 2009
  • Wouldn't it make sense for it remain compulsory? If you are stating that the value reverts to a default in the case of an omission - the requirement is still that the hlisting requires a URI as part of the lister - I feel it should stay so that aggregation of hlisting information is possible outside of the domain it was originally posted on. It therefore requires this information to exist. Maybe the required property should be the url value and the other properties can be optional. Spiritquest 19:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Use rel-payment or something similar to indicate payment method for hListing.

additional transactional details

Per the discussions raised in the hProduct issues list, consider provisions for providing transactional details like "shipping" or "buy/payment" attributes or similar for an iteration of hListing.

see also

listing microformat brainstorming was last modified: Wednesday, December 31st, 1969