- From: Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:27:02 -0300
- To: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, "<public-lod@w3.org> community" <public-lod@w3.org>, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Right, I thought as much. Which makes the point of schema.rdf.org vocabulary support by the parsers even more critical to encourage its adoption... D On Jun 6, 2011, at 14:19 - 06/06/11, Patrick Logan wrote: > Google has advised against "mixing markup" because it "confuses their > parsers". I have not seen similar advice from the other two vendors. > > (Which strikes me as odd, but nevertheless...) > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote: >> Martin, >> I can see the point with Good Relations - they acknowledge they will continue supporting RDFa *with the vocabularies they already support*. >> My question then was about RDFa support for *schema.rdf.org* vocabulary. >> Also, Gio's question is applicable - can one have page markups with both RDFa and schema.org? >> >> Cheers >> D >>
Received on Monday, 6 June 2011 17:27:36 UTC