Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 2017-07-26 16:52, Philipp Serafin wrote: That sounds like a very expensive solution for a technology that was supposed to enable bots to consume web pages *without* needing to cut through all the bloat. Yeah. As far as I know, content is still king at Google. So extra weight will be given

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

Paving the cowpaths is all well and good, but if it ends up recommending technologies which unilaterally favor some parties, that sounds like a big argument to develop a better technology. Mark Kaplun schrieb am Mi., 26. Juli 2017 um 17:07 Uhr: > > [...] > > As far as I know,

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 2017-07-26 07:49, Ian Hickson wrote: Disrespect of fellow members of the list is unacceptable. ... Please peruse our code of conduct if the reasoning behind this action is unclear to you: https://whatwg.org/code-of-conduct Thanks. Thank you. -- Unless specified otherwise, anything I

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Philipp Serafin wrote: > Mark Kaplun schrieb am Mi., 26. Juli 2017 um 15:43 Uhr: > >> [...] >> Basically the HTML is loaded first, and at some point you can have some JS >> that will load the JSON by an AJAX request. google is

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

Mark Kaplun schrieb am Mi., 26. Juli 2017 um 15:43 Uhr: > [...] > Basically the HTML is loaded first, and at some point you can have some JS > that will load the JSON by an AJAX request. google is happy to get the > JSON-LD this way [...] > This sounds like an interesting

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 26 July 2017 at 15:43, Mark Kaplun wrote: > Well, in practice, since it is an SEO signal what google does in practice > is more important than any theoretical discussion. > > Not being in any way affiliated with google, my own impression is that > google do not care which

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

Well, in practice, since it is an SEO signal what google does in practice is more important than any theoretical discussion. Not being in any way affiliated with google, my own impression is that google do not care which format you use as long as it can be parsed by them. The main problem with

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 26 July 2017 at 15:04, Jonathan Zuckerman wrote: > After reading just a bit more - it seems like JSON-LD and schema.org have > slightly different goals - schema.org suggests conventions for data cues > in > HTML, JSON-LD suggests it for JSON (e.g. API responses for

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

After reading just a bit more - it seems like JSON-LD and schema.org have slightly different goals - schema.org suggests conventions for data cues in HTML, JSON-LD suggests it for JSON (e.g. API responses for dynamic websites) - exactly how "best practice" is this pattern of stuffing JSON-LD into

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

hmmm http://blog.schema.org/2013/06/schemaorg-and-json-ld.html If you use a CMS like wordpress for your content, and you are just a content person, it is a big meh to try to add manually the attributes, and it is also a meh to develop software that will need to parse the content to add it as you

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

I agree that reducing the bloat of JSON-LD is a noble goal. Sorry to belabor this point, but can you explain why JSON-LD is needed in the first place? I've tried to point out that HTML is capable of doing it without another spec, which obviates the need for content duplication and bloat that

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:21 PM Michael A. Peters wrote: > On 07/25/2017 10:45 AM, Jonathan Zuckerman wrote: > > This suggestion might have more success with the W3C? I'm not completely > > clear on the politics and history of the two orgs, but it seems like the > > W3C

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 07/25/2017 02:42 PM, Qebui Nehebkau wrote: On 25 July 2017 at 17:32, Michael A. Peters wrote: Nor does his assumption that I am "new" to the web somehow disqualify me from making suggestions with current use cases that could reduce the bloat of traffic. Oh, then

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

Michael, I was truly dismayed to see your reaction to my email. Qebui's interpretation is close to my intent, but upon re-reading it I agree that it seems condescending so, right on for calling that out. I want to point out that I am nobody at the WHATWG - I just lurk on this list and pipe up when

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 07/25/2017 02:29 PM, Qebui Nehebkau wrote: Wow, that was unnecessary. "Working with the web since the late 90s" doesn't intrinsically make you any more right or any better a web designer than some 12-year-old from Geocities. If maintaining your worldview depends on assuming that anyone who

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

Wow, that was unnecessary. "Working with the web since the late 90s" doesn't intrinsically make you any more right or any better a web designer than some 12-year-old from Geocities. If maintaining your worldview depends on assuming that anyone who disagrees is "too biased", your worldview is

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 07/25/2017 10:45 AM, Jonathan Zuckerman wrote: This suggestion might have more success with the W3C? I'm not completely clear on the politics and history of the two orgs, but it seems like the W3C has supported JSON-LD in the past, so they might have some interest in expanding it. On a

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

This suggestion might have more success with the W3C? I'm not completely clear on the politics and history of the two orgs, but it seems like the W3C has supported JSON-LD in the past, so they might have some interest in expanding it. On a personal note, I think you've got really far down the

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 07/24/2017 04:43 PM, Qebui Nehebkau wrote: On 24 July 2017 at 19:21, Michael A. Peters wrote: But if you define your structured data as attributes then information about the other 11 is not available to machines that fetch the page and want to know what the page

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 24 July 2017 at 19:21, Michael A. Peters wrote: > But if you define your structured data as attributes then information > about the other 11 is not available to machines that fetch the page and > want to know what the page offers. > It sounds like the machines

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

When too much is displayed, the website is too busy. If there are 12 audios in a group, the person can only listen to one at a time so it is pointless to have 12 audio nodes present. But you can display one and have the other 11 accessible via a select menu, so that if and when the user

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 21 July 2017 at 23:21, Michael A. Peters wrote: > I am (finally) starting to implement JSON-LD on a site, it generates a lot > of data that is useless to the non-bot typical user. > > I'd prefer to only stick it in the head when the client is a crawler that > wants it.

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

...pardon, I meant to reply to the group. Thank you for the notice. Reposting to group: Am 24.07.2017 5:41 nachm. schrieb "Jonathan Zuckerman" < j.zucker...@gmail.com>: How about a hyperlink to an artist page with complete info about the artist? This has been the established pattern since the

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

I think one of the best aspects of the web platform is that there can be a single node in the network that is accessible to *all*. The linked data approach hides the information from humans. The structured data alternative you suggest (div display none) still hides the information from humans.

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 07/23/2017 03:33 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote: On 07/23/2017 02:42 PM, Qebui Nehebkau wrote: *snip* I can't speak for anyone else - I can barely speak for myself - but I think I'd argue that, intuitively, if your structured data isn't logically part of your content, there's a good chance

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 07/23/2017 02:42 PM, Qebui Nehebkau wrote: On 23 July 2017 at 14:12, Michael A. Peters wrote: It's a beautiful way to create structured data separate from the content, just like layout (CSS) is best kept separate from the content. [...] I wonder why people on this

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

On 23 July 2017 at 14:12, Michael A. Peters wrote: > It's a beautiful way to create structured data separate from the content, > just like layout (CSS) is best kept separate from the content. [...] I > wonder why people on this list don't like it. Reading about it was an

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

Interesting. It's a beautiful way to create structured data separate from the content, just like layout (CSS) is best kept separate from the content. I wonder why people on this list don't like it. Reading about it was an epiphany for me, it's (in my opinion) the right way to do structured

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

Hypothetically, if search engines were to start picking up JSON-LD from linked files, which link rel type would this group consider most appropriate? Dan On 23 July 2017 at 06:12, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > 2¢: This list tends to disapprove of JSON-LD, so you should

Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

2¢: This list tends to disapprove of JSON-LD, so you should probably first run your proposal by a group that likes JSON-LD. Maybe public-rdf-comme...@w3.org referenced from https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/? Or an issue against https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org? Jeffrey On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at