W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > February 2007

RE: SWEO is in the news :-)

From: Paul Walsh, Segala <paulwalsh@segala.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:10:58 -0000
To: "'Benjamin Nowack'" <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Cc: "'W3C SWEO IG'" <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20070208181059.1AAC112EB5EEC@postie1.hosting365.ie>

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Nowack [mailto:bnowack@appmosphere.com] 
Sent: 08 February 2007 17:50

On 08.02.2007 15:35:09, Paul Walsh, Segala wrote:
>[PW] Benjamin, that's what I thought you'd say :) Wouldn't it be better if
>it was built into search engines such as Google
It is. just try the demo ;)

[PW] Brilliant - love the layout too :) So, (sorry for the stupid question)
what are the chances of this data being read by the search engines and/or
browsers themselves? 

I ask the question because if we *also* created a Content Label which then
became one of many labels for such codes of conduct, we'd have more buying
power to encourage the adoption of said method. That makes sense in my head,
but might not make sense to you :)

That's my
>goal. That is, for mainstream browsers and search engines to read
>POWDER/Content Labels.
why yet another syntax layer when the functionality can be 
achieved with simpler means already deployed?

[PW] It depends on which is easier to sell / easier/more likely to be
adopted by search engines and/or browsers themselves. I know Microsoft want
to pay for the build of an IE which doesn't happen very often (if at all to
date), so they're interested (well, some of them at least) in Content Labels
being used to annotate and filter search results.

I'll shut up as soon as my brain cell can figure out how we can get the two
working together so it's not one or the other. The last thing we want is for
search engines to look at different types of data, or even use different
ways of reading the same data.

anyway, this is *inreach* again, I'll shut up ;)
[PW] No, it's great :)

Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 18:11:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:52 UTC