- From: Jens O. Meiert <jens@meiert.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:30:21 +0200
- To: Bruno Racineux <bruno@hexanet.net>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
> It doesn't matter what W3C recommends if Google or Bing suggest different > patterns. Right now Google uses the right angle bracket in their doc. > While Bing suggest either right angle bracket or double right angle > bracket. > > Why don't you guys at W3C consult with search engine folks. Getting on the > same page would be very nice, instead of having 3 different syntax > recommendations. Only responding to this part of your email: Unless you’re suggesting interest in this to the extent of issuing penalties for non-compliance on behalf of search engines (which you please provide evidence for) this is, frankly, nonsense. Furthermore, the delimiter topic itself seems long done, in the sense of that there’s rough agreement that “greater than” characters are typographically inadequate in the context of breadcrumbs. In addition, and speaking as an ex-Googler, regarding code that any given company uses in the assumption that it would even reflect their own views and standards is maybe a little naive. (Anecdotally, I myself have fished stuff like <h7> and <h8> elements out of Google’s code base, and that code had no significance for company nor industry whatsoever.) This issue is about writing accurate documentation and making a sound recommendation for breadcrumb markup (Steve, please correct me if I’m confusing things now :). Giving this thought on W3C’s end makes sense as the relevant specs have been written or edited on the W3C side, and as developers may look at the W3C to give sensible recommendations. The world will not end if this documentation makes a recommendation that not everyone agrees to but pulling in search engines here doesn’t help anyone. If at all we could ping Ian (Hickson) and former HTML editors on their take of markup intent and how they think this problem should be tackled. Seems I don’t exactly manage to step away from this discussion. :) -- Jens O. Meiert http://meiert.com/en/
Received on Sunday, 2 March 2014 10:31:12 UTC