- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:31:01 +0200
- To: public-html-comments@w3.org
2012-11-27 22:25, Dennis Erny wrote: > > RDFa Lite has a smaller footprint, byte-for-byte, compared to > Microdata. This alone is enough for me to utilize it over Hickson’s > creation (and I do, extensively at http://reuze.me). > That sounds interesting. I wonder whether Schema.org still focuses on microdata, as they describe at http://schema.org/docs/faq.html#14 After all, it is the potential consumers of metadata that matter most here. On the other hand, there does not seem to be evidence about web-wide use of metadata in any of the competing formats, in major search engines. We can see that Google uses it for specialized searches, but it seems to extract such data from large commercial or community sites only, according to criteria that have not been disclosed. But according to Schema.org information, using microdata seems to be the best shot. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 13:31:25 UTC