Re: No more Schema.org data on YouTube

Dan,

schemas are playing an increasing role in the future of standards.  as an
elder of the particular field, have you any view on the future of
ontologies & W3C?

IMHO where standards don't work without particular vocab; my thoughts are
that some modern thinking likely needs to be put into it.

Tim.H.


On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 00:24 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> To stress Charles' point once more, there are 100s of people on this list.
> I fear none of them will get much out of speculation on the internal
> architecture of Google's ( / YouTube's) Web infrastructure, and those of us
> with some modest knowledge of it can't talk much about it anyway. That said
> I strongly suspect the particular issue under discussion is simply a bug.
> Out of scope for this group's real focus.
>
> Let's please go back to talking about standards and schemas, rather than
> about Google!
>
> Dan
>
> On 9 Oct 2017 10:01, "Hans Polak" <info@polak.es> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > However would still be interesting to know why they do that.
>>
>> Just a guess, but when you serve dynamic content, both speed and size
>> matter. In this case, I'd venture that speed is an issue. When a request
>> comes in, one check to see if it's a browser is faster than adding the
>> schema.org info.
>>
>> A different model would result in higher speeds, but the "serve all
>> requests dynamically" model is the standard. I have done some work on a
>> "mixed content" server, but haven't pursued it. For organizations like
>> Google, having a "mixed content" server would result in huge savings. Just
>> saying.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hans Polak
>>
>>
>>