- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 07:40:53 +0200
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: Antonia Rosati <arosati@ucar.edu>, "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>, "Sandhaus, Evan" <sandhes@nytimes.com>, Public Vocabs <public-vocabs@w3.org>, mayernik@ucar.edu
On 9 August 2012 03:22, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote: > It's too bad we're guessing about this. Ok, so what are the questions here...? * is this legal syntax per the relevant HTML/Microdata spec? * do the search engines tend to discourage it for trust/quality etc reasons? * can the search engines currently parse it? * what's the closest / best equivalent markup in RDFa 1.1? Would someone care to get a concrete example scenario + markup into our area of the W3C Wiki, and we can start working up an answer in a more useful form than a giant mail thread... See http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas and nearby; anyone can get a public W3C account for that. For the 'can they parse it' question, http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas#Tools_and_Statistics has links to Google, Bing and Yandex parser/checker tools. cheers, Dan
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 05:41:21 UTC