On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Daniel Friesen <dan...@nadir-seen-fire.com> wrote: > On 2015-04-02 8:44 PM, Brian Wolff wrote: >> However there is clearly a desire to be able to identify a representitive >> image for an article. This need is exhibited across many websites including >> reddit, facebook, google plus, etc, but also our own site as noted by the >> page images extension for mobile. Its clear there are multiple parties that >> want to be able to accurately extract such information progmatically from >> any arbitrary website on the internet. I would argue supporting this use >> case is not a Wikipedia issue, but a MediaWiki issue. >> >> We should research which meta data scheme is the most de-facto standard for >> declaring this sort of information (whether that be open graph or schema.org >> or something else) and implement it (and only 1. Implenting this 10 >> different ways would be silly). > > Facebook exclusively supports Open Graph. > > Google+ recommends schema.org microdata and uses Open Graph. > > Twitter exclusively uses their proprietary Twitter cards markup ( <meta > name="twitter:card" content="summary" /> ...) and requires you to > validate and submit your site for approval before they'll display cards. > > Reddit uses embed.ly, which is supposed to support a variety of Open > Graph, oEmbed, etc... > > Bing uses schema.org and Open Graph but states that they "currently only > [use] this information to enhance the visual display of search results > of a limited number of publishers". Bing just uses everything it can, > Microdata, Microformats, RDFa, etc... > > Google uses schema.org in microdata, RDFa, and JSON-LD formats for rich > data (I'm not sure if they bother with page level metadata at all, > standard HTML title and meta description generally covers what they output). > > ---- > > So my opinion would be to support Open Graph, optionally add some > schema.org, > and screw Twitter and their unwillingness to play nice with attempts to > standardize metadata.
+1 and if someone writes the patch I'll +2 it. We've been talking about this for far too long :-) > > We should also consider oEmbed where it makes sense. > > ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
