- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:17:35 +0100
- To: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJKWDptAo60XaiHZZOjUvgDycWy=ESFEhq_okezghGZ5A@mail.gmail.com>
" I will try to get some more detailed statistics published from Google, but as a first approximation I think I can reasonably share that we are seeing JSON-LD on several million sites. Prior to https://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/improved-sitelinks-search-box.html it was relatively obscure, except for use in email e.g. see https://developers.google.com/schemas/formats/json-ld . Since JSON-LD only became a W3C Recommendation in January 2014 this is pretty healthy adoption. I should also mention that while JSON-LD is increasingly favoured as a preferred syntax (over microdata/rdfa) for many Google features/products, there are some for which Microdata continues to be the preferred format. Since schema.org is defined in a syntax-neutral manner this is a relatively minor complication. See also https://developers.google.com/structured-data/ -> https://developers.google.com/structured-data/rich-snippets/products -> https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/6069143?hl=en danbri@google.com " https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/27#issuecomment-179207196 I would like to offer this as new information Tanek's comment "JSON LD is a non starter" IMHO, this is strong evidence that this group should be standarizing around this W3C REC, and push alternatives further towards a note. Thoughts?
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2016 18:18:04 UTC