Re: Why are references at and google developers not consistent?

On 9 November 2013 16:55, Chilly Bang <> wrote:
> Hello!
> I realized even, that there is another one site with references, once from Google: And this Google's reference site contains some types (i found two, but there must be more), which generates 404 by quering of site while there are a link to

Each of those pages on the Google developers site *should* contain the
text "Note: This schema is not yet part of the official
vocabulary and is pending review by Therefore, it may be
subject to changes.".

It looks like some in-progress types which are not yet officially
finalised have mistakenly been marked as "Note: This schema is part of
the vocabulary. It is mirrored here for your convenience."
instead. is the one true reference for

When we put together the documentation site for these Google products
we debated whether to use different URLs for proposed types but
instead settled on having the disclaimer text. I will report the error
and get this fixed, thanks for pointing it out.


> Look:
> -, this one isn't present at, 404, and this one too:
> -, the same 404 at
> This uncompatibilty makes me doubt in the usability of the whole system: if there are more than one site, each of them with different types, so which of them is trustful? Which types from which site can i use, if the "standard" site gives 404 to type, which are peresent at Are all webmaster forced now to stop using microdata till there will be only one standard site again?
> Can somebody give a clarity, which types from which site are really standard and can be used withoud doubt?
> Thanks

Received on Saturday, 9 November 2013 17:10:49 UTC