Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

7

Both are solutions for semantically annotating your content, but in very different ways: Microdata extends HTML5 (e.g., by introducing new attributes like itemprop), while Microformats only uses existing HTML mechanisms (like class and rel attributes). With Microdata, you can use almost any vocabulary (a popular one is Schema.org), with Microformats you ...


7

These are no resources which get usually accessed by the browser but simply a fancy way to declare a name space, i.e. all SVG images share the same XML name space which is defined by the URL and same with xlink. This means you should treat any of these xmlns just as some kind of special string and leave them unchanged.


5

Typically, user agents wouldn’t dereference these URIs. There should be absolutely no problem in using the Schema.org HTTP URIs on a HTTPS site. In fact, many other vocabularies (used for Microdata or RDFa) provide only HTTP URIs, so you have no choice there. I’d even say it’s bad practice to provide multiple vocabulary URIs for the same concept, as ...


4

I guess there is no reason to assume that Google wouldn’t handle SVGs as value of the image property: Schema.org’s image property expects an image URL (or an ImageObject). SVG is an image format (image/svg+xml). Google does index SVG images. (Of course, we can never be sure; and things might change always.) Generally, the syntax shouldn’t matter, as ...


4

Note that syntaxes like Microdata and RDFa don’t annotate the HTML, they use the HTML just as a carrier. After parsing the Microdata/RDFa, it doesn’t matter anymore which markup was used. If your two properties with the same content belong to the same item, it’s not useful to have the additional one, as it doesn’t add anything new (but it’s not forbidden ...


3

Your plan of using meta data for microdata is not viable. Here is Google's FAQ about why it isn't showing your data in the search results: Is your marked-up content hidden from users? In general, Google won't display any content in rich snippets that is not visible to human user. Don't hide the content that you have marked up for rich snippets ...


3

Don’t use protocol-relative Schema.org URIs: I wouldn’t expect all Microdata consumers to handle these URIs correctly (while it’s common for links or embedded resources, values of the itemtype attribute typically don’t get dereferenced). They fail when a different protocol than HTTP/HTTPS is used (for example, file). It’s not just that the link is broken ...


3

You could use Product, but I guess you’d only use its name and description properties. So why not use Offer directly? You can specify name, description, category, and price.


3

JSON-LD doesn’t care. Which makes sense, because the data is the same, no matter from where in the document it gets extracted. From the perspective of HTML, you should only include it in the head if the JSON-LD is about your web page or about what your web page represents, because the head element is defined to contain metadata for the document. But it’s ...


3

What makes it worthwhile providing metadata? The fact that companies like Google and Microsoft provide this metadata also themselves? Or the fact that these companies make use of the metadata you provide? The Schema.org sponsor’s search engines provide no (Bing, Yahoo, Yandex) to little (Google) metadata using the Schema.org vocabulary, and this might ...


2

You can simply refer to Your logo via meta/link tag as suggested in official documentation: http://schema.org/docs/gs.html#advanced_missing <!-- schema.org item wrapper --> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Organization"> <!-- This is Your original SVG markup --> <svg id="my-logo" height="60" width="60" ...


2

Yes, your use of Microdata and schema.org is correct. Instead of div, you might want consider using the sectioning element aside: The element can be used for […] advertising, […] That way the advertisement is separate from the main content flow of your document. Oh, and don’t forget to provide an alt attribute for the image. Depending on the ad, you ...


2

If you want to use the Schema.org vocabulary, you could use two WebPage sub-types: ItemPage for a product. A page devoted to a single item, such as a particular product or hotel. CollectionPage for a tag/category page.


2

Yes and often you need to do this to activate widgets. Schema.org has shoddy support for things like review-aggregate and doesnt support breadcrumbs (weird eh?). Reviews especially, it fails validators until you use a mix of Schema and Data-Vocabulary. Here are some random examples: This Schema does not work for Product review summary: <div itemscope ...


2

How to debug markup implementation errors and Fix it: To investigate an issue with a specific content type, click on it and it will show you the markup errors found for that type. You can see all of them at once, or filter by error type using the tabs at the top. Check to see if the markup meets the implementation guidelines for each content type. Click on ...


2

I cant comment on whether this would work for all situations, but we use Schema.org in the manner you describe -- as meta "content" on the product pages. Why? It's just so much more portable and doesn't wreck up themes. It also allows more granular control on formatting the data, and it gets relevant data just after <body> (far above the fold). ...


2

1.) I stand corrected on the particular problem i stated before being an ISO time/format issue. I think its because the Schemas are being mixed together. After some removal of misc stuff from source code to make this smaller OP source code is as follows: <div itemtype="http://data-vocabulary.org/Recipe" itemscope="" class="pd_main_wrapper"> ...


2

Perhaps http://schema.org/ItemList would be a better fit. But I'm not sure how it will actually help search engine to parse a menu in a better way.


2

The mainContentOfPage property expects a WebPageElement as value, but you are using Blog (which is not a child of WebPageElement). You seem to use it like a property to denote the "main entity" of a page, but this is not appropriate. A property for that is currently under discussion. Side note: It is not appropriate to use the url property for each ...


2

You are missing some closing </div> tags. If I correctly interpret your intentions, it should look like this: <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/SocialEvent"> <a itemprop="url" href="www.convention-name.org"><div itemprop="name"><strong>Bob's Convention</strong></div></a> <div ...


2

Your use of additionalType in the first snippet is correct. An example where additionalType is used can be seen on Schema.org’s IndividualProduct: <script type="application/ld+json"> { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@id": "#product", "@type": "IndividualProduct", "additionalType": "http://www.productontology.org/id/Racing_bicycle", ...


2

I’m assuming you are using the vocabulary Schema.org and have something like this: <script type="application/ld+json"> { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "LocalBusiness", "url": "http://example.com/" } </script> Here the url property belongs to the LocalBusiness item. So it should give the URI of the local business, no matter on ...


2

No, your example would mean that it’s an schema:Article and a pto:Dog_breed. To state what the schema:Article is about, you could use its about property. The elaborate version would be: <article itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Article"> <div itemprop="about" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Intangible"> <link ...


2

What is the correct usage of using the brand schema from schema.org? There is not one "correct usage" – it depends on what you want to convey. If you want to say something about a brand, you can use Schema.org’s Brand type. The Product type has the property brand, which takes a Brand item as value. This would allow you to reference the Brand from each ...


2

There is no need for the >symbol regarding to the Google Structured Data page about Breadcrumbs. Just use a markup as shown in the example: <ol itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/BreadcrumbList"> <li itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"> <a itemprop="item" ...


1

Google's review extensions policies indicates that the reviews must be hosted in their original location: The following types of reviews are prohibited: Second-hand reporting (rather than directly linking to source) Using reviews that have been copied to your own site would not be allowed under this policy.


1

For the Microdata, it does not matter if you use div, span or li. Using this is invalid, of course (span can’t have the attributes a and href): <span a href="http://www.example.com/" itemprop="url"></span> If you want to provide a URL without having a clickable/visible link, use the link element (which can be used in the body if used for ...


1

Another alternative would be to save your image as a .svg file. You can use any text editor to create this file and paste in your SVG markup. Then put the markup on just like you would do for a .png or .jpg: <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Organization"> <a itemprop="url" href="http://www.example.com/">Home</a> <img ...


1

Invalid rich data markup Having invalid failing rich data markup such as Schema or hAtom isn't going to have a massive impact on your rankings, in fact there's little to none evidence supporting that having good markup actually increases your rankings directly, however it is agreed that having rich data can improve the click rate because of additionally ...


1

You don’t sell it, but do you offer it in some other way (e.g., gratis or for trade)? If not, Product is not appropriate, because it is only for an "offered product or service" (emphasis mine). You can start from Thing (which can be used if there is no more specific type available). It currently has the following child types: Action BroadcastService ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible