W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Schema.org v1.6 release candidate: Roles, various fixes, site navigation improvements

From: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:27:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMbipBthippy_en3+b+d11zAusCVVd3XrBpEgkWfa6fuZg1WWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Cc: Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Excellent points Markus, and you remind me that I've noted just these
issues with the "Without Markup" tab in the past.

>An idea would perhaps be to not take "Without Markup" that literally. Mark
the examples up with HTML but don't annotate them. Then, when switching to
another tab, it's much easier to make the connection.

I'd recommend exactly that.  Not only could webmasters broadly make the
connection between the HTML with and without structured data markup, but it
would permit webmasters to see exactly which code modifications the
addition of schema.org required (for microdata and RDFa).



On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:47 PM, Aaron Bradley wrote:
> > This is not a commentary about the relative usefulness of Turtle, but
> > on the intended audience of the site and the profile of its adopters -
> > all the points made by Dan Scott.  An optional Turtle tab?  Sure, why
> > not.  Turtle as the centerpiece of the code examples?  Only if the aim
> > of doing so is alienating most webmasters.
> >
> > And I'd use the same logic in arguing against JSON-LD as the default
> > view.  JSON, of course, is - unlike Turtle - readily understood and
> > used daily by most developers.  But remembering, to Dan Scott's point,
> > that schema.org is "a collection of schemas that webmasters can use to
> > markup HTML pages in ways recognized by major search providers," it
> > makes little sense to emphasize the syntax which is currently only
> > tangentially recognized by one of the major search providers in a very
> > limited context.
>
> Yeah, that's a good point Aaron. The problem I see with the current
> "Without Markup" tab is that it provides very little value to web
> developers which aren't deeply involved in all these discussions. They
> mostly spend a minute or two to find an example they can copy-paste-adapt
> into their sites. It's very difficult to see (visually) that Microdata/RDFa
> really just add a couple of attributes here and there. Look at
> http://schema.org/Recipe for example. All I get from the "Without Markup"
> table is "well, unsurprisingly the example is about a recipe". Then, when I
> jump to Microdata or RDFa I get snippets that are first of all almost 50%
> longer. It's not easy to see what was added. And in most cases I as a
> developer can't just copy-paste that example as the structure on my page
> probably looks completely differently. So if JSON-LD would already be
> well-supported by all major search engines, the whole experience for web
> developers would indeed become much much simpler in my (obviously biased)
> opinion. But unfortunately we are not there yet.
>
> So, what can we do to improve it in the meantime? An idea would perhaps be
> to not take "Without Markup" that literally. Mark the examples up with HTML
> but don't annotate them. Then, when switching to another tab, it's much
> easier to make the connection.
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 22:27:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:42 UTC