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.

@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?