Re: Breadcrumbs proposal

What I am wondering is why we would need a new type for this? What if
instead we use WebPage and extend it with a new property -> child.

For example:

<div itemprop="breadcrumb" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage">
    <a itemprop="url" href="/category/books">
      <span itemprop="name">Books</span>
    </a>
    <!--Second level of the first chain-->
    <span itemprop="child" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage">
      <a itemprop="url" href="/category/books/classics">
        <span itemprop="name">Boring classics</span>
      </a>
    </span>
  </div>
</div>

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:
> My two cents on this is that the data-vocabulary.org model - where
> Breadcrumb is represented as a type rather than a property - is, in the
> grand scheme of things, relatively light markup for the amount of precision
> one is able to encode (namely the ability to differentiate the breadcrumb
> title from its URL, and the ability to declare multiple breadcrumb paths on
> the same page).
>
> Accordingly, I would certainly favor explicit breadcrumb property
> declarations over a broad declaration of a "markup area that contains
> breadcrumbs."  Relying on consumers to parse such markup meaningfully is, in
> my opinion, obviating one of the one key benefits of structured data markup
> - namely reducing the amount of guesswork required of parsers (or, depending
> how you look at, limiting the likely different interpretations of code by
> different parsers) .
>
> Example data-vocabulary.org code from the Google Webmaster Tools article on
> breadcrumbs [1]:
>
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb">
>   <a href="http://www.example.com/dresses" itemprop="url">
>     <span itemprop="title">Dresses</span>
>   </a> ›
> </div>
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb">
>   <a href="http://www.example.com/dresses/real" itemprop="url">
>     <span itemprop="title">Real Dresses</span>
>   </a> ›
> </div>
> <div itemscope itemtype="http://data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb">
>   <a href="http://www.example.com/clothes/dresses/real/green"
> itemprop="url">
>     <span itemprop="title">Real Green Dresses</span>
>   </a>
> </div>
>
> [1] http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=185417
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 10 June 2013 21:47, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl> wrote:
>> > Can anybody tell me whatever happened to the Breadcrumb proposal
>> > (http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Breadcrumbs)?
>> >
>> > Isn't it about time something is done about the current state of the
>> > schema.org breadcrumb property? It seems crazy to me to keep
>> > suggesting to add new items to schema.org if we can't fix what's
>> > already there - It's getting tiresome to keep falling back to the
>> > data-vocabulary.org breadcrumb because the schema.org version has been
>> > put on ice.
>>
>> Very fair question. Here's the core of the problem as I understand it:
>>
>> * The markup requirement is roughly that consumers want: i) an ordered
>> list ii) of anchor URL / text pairs.
>> * Representing this explicitly in Microdata + RDFa is quite heavy
>> markup (esp RDFa whose output is formally unordered)
>> * An alternate design would be simply to indicate the markup area that
>> contains breadcrumbs and acknowledge that consumers will re-parse this
>> * Doing so would work differently in RDFa and Microdata, since the
>> value of a Microdata property is never structured markup.
>>
>> I don't think these are insurmountable problems, and agree that we
>> should get this moving again. There's a lot of breadcrumb markup out
>> there...
>>
>> Dan
>>
>

Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 23:35:53 UTC