This. I don't want to lose Jonas' point in this long thread, but I also
haven't read anything here that warrants new native parser(s) yet. Let's
iterate in Gaia for now. I don't see how a C++ metadata parser is
advantageous at this point, and the RDF history lessons certainly don't
encourage that p
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Gordon Brander
wrote:
> This thread has been fun to follow. There are only 2 hard problems in Comp
> Sci and naming things is one of them ;).
>
> Just wanted to quickly chip in: during our lively discussion about naming,
> let’s not forget Postel’s Law.
>
> It’s s
This thread has been fun to follow. There are only 2 hard problems in Comp Sci
and naming things is one of them ;).
Just wanted to quickly chip in: during our lively discussion about naming,
let’s not forget Postel’s Law.
It’s smart to debate which format we should encourage for _publishing_.
I
On 2 July 2015 at 03:37, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> tl;dr: It's time. Let's land microformats parsing support in Gecko as
> a Q3 Platform deliverable that Gaia can use.
>
Happy to hear this!
> I think there's rough consensus that a subset of OG, as described by
> Ted, satisfies this. Minimizing our
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>
> > Schema.org also provides existing schemas for actions associated with
> items
> > (https://schema.org/docs/actions.html),
>
> ...
>
> Currently the IndieWeb community is pursuing Web Actions (and has them
> working across sites)
>
> http:/
I'd definitely like to keep the implementation of whatever formats we
use in Gaia given that this is still an experimental feature and the
use cases are likely to evolve as we get user feedback.
It seems to me that given that our use case here, beyond OG, is only
our "internal" content, I.e. Gaia.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>
> There *is* a pretty strong engineering consensus, in both this thread,
> and other threads *against* any use of JSON-LD, or anything Linked
> Data or otherwise rebranded RDF / Semantic Web, and for good reason.
Indeed, just a few days ago bs
Great discussion and feedback in this thread - plenty to act on.
Thanks Ted Clancy for kicking this off with an impassioned reality
check. And Thanks in particular to Benjamin Francis for summarizing
product requirements and use-cases, and especially to both Ted and Ben
taking the time last week i
Thanks for the responses,
Let me reiterate the Product requirements:
1. Support for a syntax and vocabulary already in wide use on the web to
allow the creation of cards for the largest possible volume of existing
pinnable content
2. Support for a syntax with a large enough and/or ext
On June 29, 2015 at 7:07:33 AM, Michael Henretty (mhenre...@mozilla.com) wrote:
> We will definitely start with the simple open graph stuff that Ted
> mentioned ("og:title", "og:type", "og:url", "og:image", "og:description")
> since they are so widely used. And yes, even these simple ones are
>
On Saturday, June 27, 2015, Benjamin Francis wrote:
> On 26 June 2015 at 19:25, Marcos Caceres > wrote:
>
>> Could we see some examples of the cards you are generating already with
>> existing data from the Web (from your prototype)? The value is really in
>> seeing that users will get some real
On June 27, 2015 at 10:02:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) wrote:
> >
> The data I have does not back this up, Microdata is shown to be growing
> fast whereas Microformats usage has remained relatively stable.
> Also, we didn't find Microformats usage on any of the example
> high p
Let me start by saying I don't care which format we use. (Formats come, and
formats go.) I do care, however, that my use case is supported.
My use case, speech enabling web apps and web pages for Firefox OS's voice
assistant Vaani, requires that the chosen format support something akin to
schem
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
> These look fantastic! so why not start with just those? Or are all those
> card types done and thoroughly tested on a good chunk of Web content? As I
> mentioned before, I'd be worried about the amount of error recovery
> code that will b
On 26 June 2015 at 19:25, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> Could we see some examples of the cards you are generating already with
> existing data from the Web (from your prototype)? The value is really in
> seeing that users will get some real benefit, without expecting developers
> to add additional met
On 26 June 2015 at 17:02, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I would encourage you to go a little deeper...
> We need to judge standards on their merits
I did look deeper. I read most of all the specifications and several papers
on their adoption. My personal conclusion was that not only does
Microform
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Benjamin Francis wrote:
> When I look at RDFa, Microdata and JSON-LD I see formal W3C
> recommendations, extensive vocabularies which (at least on the surface) are
> agreed on by all the big search engines, and I see a clean engineering
> solution (albeit fairly co
On 26 June 2015 at 12:58, Ted Clancy wrote:
> My apologies for the fact that this is such an essay, but I think this has
> become necessary.
>
> Firefox OS 2.5 will be unveiling a new feature called Pinning The Web, and
> there's been some discussion about whether we should leverage technologies
My apologies for the fact that this is such an essay, but I think this has
become necessary.
Firefox OS 2.5 will be unveiling a new feature called Pinning The Web, and
there's been some discussion about whether we should leverage technologies
like RDFa, Microdata, JSON-LD, Open Graph, and Microfor
19 matches
Mail list logo
