Re: Is http://schema.org preferred over http://schema.org? Is https://schema.org wrong?

Let me also answer this here, since I commented in
https://plus.google.com/u/0/106943062990152739506/posts/8KoJZYvZEfL
already. The situation is as follows:

"1. the official definition of each schema.org term is via a URL of
the form e.g.'http://schema.org/Person'. These are the canonical
identifiers forschema.org terms.

2. the site happens to also work currently via https://

3. there is consensus amongst the schema.org partners that they
considerschema.org markup (in whatever format) in which
https://schema.org/ is written instead of http://schema.org/ to be
perfectly ok. For specifics of actual support for this, see each
company individually.

4. at this time we (the schema.org team) have not decided to promote
the https: version of the site over the http: version, although this
is generally an appealing idea. There are some peculiarities in the
way the site is hosted and implemented which I want to investigate
properly first (partially w.r.t. using a naked/apex/bare domain name
with https)."

Hope this helps clarify,

Dan

On 18 April 2015 at 15:59, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:
> To use Thing as an example, both http://schema.org/Thing and
> https://schema.org/Thing return a 200 response header.
>
> Is http:// preferred though, and his https:// actually incorrect?
>
> The Meusel and Heiko paper on fixing schema.org errors [1] buckets use of
> "the https protocol" under common errors.  And a cogent Stack Exchange
> answer [2] says that one should using http, saying "Typically, user agents
> wouldn’t dereference these URIs."
>
> So, sponsors/ontologists, what's the official story? :)
>
> This keeps coming up because for many months now Google has been encouraging
> webmasters to use https:// for their sites [4].  Because Google has tied
> this explicitly to improved search engine rankings, the audience most likely
> to consume and act on this information - search marketers - is the same
> group most likely driving schema.org implementation on their site.  And
> though it's conflating web page consumption with deferencing of URIs,
> nonetheless webmasters have been observed using https://schema.org and
> justifying doing so because of this Google initiative.
>
> If https *is* incorrect, then there are thing that can be done to mitigate
> against its use:
>
> - State that preference or requirement for http:// in the documentation.
>
> - Add a rel="canonical" statement to each schema.org page where the href
> value uses the http:// form of the URL.  Not only would that send a clear
> message to any human examining the canonical, but send a message ("a strong
> hint" in the words of Google) to the search engines not to index the
> https:// form, and so they wouldn't be as likely to surface in search
> results (there are currently 1,890 https://schema.org URLs in Google, 31,000
> in Bing).
>
> - Tangentially, use of a canonical would also stop the propagation of
> www.schema.org URLs (currently just one www page indexed in Google, but
> 31,800 in Bing).
>
> - 301 direct https://schema.org/* to http://schema.org/* - essentially
> resolving all technical issues with one stroke.  Note that an open GitHub
> issue [3] proposes redirecting www.schema.org/* to schema.org/* but doesn't
> wrap a secure to non-secure redirect in this, and would actually redirect
> "https://www.schema.org/Person to https://schema.org/Person".
>
> [1] Robert Meusel and Heiko Paulheim, Heuristics for Fixing Common Errors in
> Deployed schema.org Microdata
> http://bit.ly/1MZdEhO
>
> [2] https - Secure and non-secure Schema.org Markup?
> http://bit.ly/1HE4ZwH
>
> [3] CODE: redirect http://www.schema.org/Person to http://schema.org/Person
> · Issue #4 · schemaorg/schemaorg
> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/4
>
> [4] Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: HTTPS as a ranking signal
> http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.ca/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal.html
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 20:25:06 UTC