On 22 May 2013 23:19, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: > On Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:48 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > > A couple of points on this: > > 1. We (Google) can parse this if written @context="http://schema.org" > > and we'll find a way to document that. > > Would it be possible to document that as the preferred way of doing it? I > think most people just copy and paste that part anyway so it wouldn't > really matter in my opinion. You can still continue to support "schema.org" > but suggest people to use "http://schema.org" > > What actually worries me much more is that there isn't a context a > http://schema.org. Even if I do a GET and accept only application/ld+json > I get back an HTML page. Will that be fixed? > > > > 2. We'd also like to start a conversation about allowing the simpler, > > shorter form by defaulting to http:// if not present. > > We could certainly do that but that would mean that we would lose the > ability to use relative URLs to reference contexts which I think is very > handy for a large number of use cases. > It may be slightly better to standardize in https, rather than http, since schema.org is used for ecommerce too. I dont think there's currently any known attack vector based on MITM of a vocab, but one may emerge in future. > > > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > >Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 21:36:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:37 UTC