- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 17:10:21 +0000
- To: chilly_bang@yahoo.de
- Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 9 November 2013 16:55, Chilly Bang <chilly_bang@yahoo.de> wrote: > Hello! > > I realized even, that there is another one site with Schema.org references, once from Google: https://developers.google.com/schemas/reference/ And this Google's reference site contains some types (i found two, but there must be more), which generates 404 by quering of Schema.org site while there are a link to Schema.org... Each of those pages on the Google developers site *should* contain the text "Note: This schema is not yet part of the official schema.org vocabulary and is pending review by schema.org. 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 schema.org vocabulary. It is mirrored here for your convenience." instead. Schema.org is the one true reference for schema.org. 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. Dan > Look: > - https://developers.google.com/schemas/reference/types/Order, this one isn't present at Schema.org, 404, and this one too: > - https://developers.google.com/schemas/reference/types/Flight, the same 404 at Schema.org. > > This uncompatibilty makes me doubt in the usability of the whole Schema.org 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 developers.google.com? 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