-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 837
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Consider menuAddOn property (+move proposed design into Pending) #1541
Comments
Agree completely with decision on menuAddOn.
Gordon Mackenzie | Schema Wrangler (Ontologist) | gmackenz@google.com |
…On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Dan Brickley ***@***.***> wrote:
Spin-off from discussion in #1288
<#1288> around menus and
menu items: the proposed menuAddOn piece of that design needs further
discussion.
http://webschemas.org/menuAddOn
"Additional menu item(s) such as a side dish of salad or side order of
fries that can be added to this menu item. Additionally it can be a menu
section containing allowed add-on menu items for this menu item."
Per #1288 <#1288>, decision
is to move that property into Pending, the rest has rough consensus and is
going directly into Core.
/cc @gmackenz <https://github.com/gmackenz>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1541>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEeZIuPiewzpteTykUAHjJr8DlChnzquks5rh0DCgaJpZM4MRnCh>
.
|
http://webschemas.org/menuAddOn should reflect this change imminently. |
I know it's pending and I hate to be a stickler about it, but I'm still against using "menuAddOn" as the name of the property. The term implies that something is being added to the menu. But we're not using it to add something to a menu, we're adding something to a menu item. So, wouldn't something like "menuItemAddOn" or "itemAddOn" be a more appropriate name for the property? I apologize, @danbri and @gmackenz but I just think that the proposed property name would be confusing to users and wouldn't appropriately reflect its intended use. |
I'm also for changing the name to itemAddOn to be less confusing. I worry
also like David.
|
@danbri Could we move forward with this property but name it "itemAddOn" instead of "menuAddOn"? |
I wonder if 'itemAddOn' isn't just as confusable with 'addOn', I am not opposed to the notion of renaming to menuItemAddOn. That said, I don't think this is ever leaving pending anytime soon. |
Personally, I think that "itemAddOn" is rather clear and straightforward but I'm open to calling it whatever the majority chooses as long as it's not "menuAddOn" for the reasons I mentioned above. |
How do you solve the problem of MenuItem having multiple size offerings. I.e. Cheese Pizza small , Cheese Pizza Large and the price of toppings (menuItemAddOns) depend on the selection - small or large. |
itemAddOn doesn't work well, since it is too generic and this property is all about menus and food We are seeing it on a fair number of sites. It is a tiny change left over from the other menu work, let's stick it in the core rather than leaving it dangling. |
Implemented in release 3.5 |
How do we make use of this? or what can you recommend for add-ons in general? We will have multiple product types from food to electronics all of which will have variants/options/addons of sorts. Is menuAddOn ready to be used? |
Spin-off from discussion in #1288 around menus and menu items: the proposed menuAddOn piece of that design needs further discussion.
http://webschemas.org/menuAddOn
Per #1288, decision is to move that property into Pending, the rest has rough consensus and is going directly into Core.
/cc @gmackenz
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: