W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2017

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

From: Michael A. Peters <mpeters@domblogger.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:40:56 -0700
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Message-ID: <9c6bc60a-12f3-5c54-ff3f-63748bca2bf1@domblogger.net>
On 07/25/2017 02:42 PM, Qebui Nehebkau wrote:
> On 25 July 2017 at 17:32, Michael A. Peters <mpeters@domblogger.net> wrote:
>
>> Nor does his assumption that I am "new" to the web somehow disqualify me
>> from making suggestions with current use cases that could reduce the bloat
>> of traffic.
>>
>
> Oh, then I think you misunderstood his statement. As I read it, "spend more
> time working with the web you have before trying to change it" was a
> suggestion to look for a way to do what you want with current technology,
> not an argument that you don't have enough web experience. "Spend more
> time" on this particular project, not in general.
>

I have a way to do what I want with current technology.

I can detect bots based upon user agent and only send the JSON-LD when I 
do so.

However there are some things that may be of use to a browser with 
accessibility functions, such as declarations regarding whether or not a 
page (or resource on a page) has flashing content or has simulated 
motion. So there are legitimate reasons why an end user client may want 
the JSON-LD data before rendering a page.

Just like the accept header for WebP, an accept header for JSON-LD could 
solve this problem. Bots and non-bot users agents that want it send it. 
Webmasters who understand people in undeveloped countries benefit from 
non-bloated paged can then choose to only send the JSON-LD in their 
pages when it is wanted.

Much better to implement this now when JSON-LD is still relatively young.

Whether JSON-LD is the best way to add structured data to a page 
probably depends upon a lot of different factors, that's a different 
discussion. But it is being used. That's the discussion, reducing the 
drawbacks of bloated content for clients that ignore it anyway.
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2017 22:41:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 July 2017 22:41:23 UTC