Difference between revisions of "service-formats"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
m |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
== Authors == | == Authors == | ||
* [[User:Wowitim|Wowitim]] 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | * [[User:Wowitim|Wowitim]] 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == See Also == | ||
| + | * [[service]] | ||
| + | * [[product]] | ||
| + | * [[hlisting]] | ||
Revision as of 17:57, 28 March 2009
Contents
Current Service Schemas
This page shows a little of the current markup landscape on services sites as the basis for the design of an hService microformat.
Active Schemas
We're ignoring RFP and contracts-oriented sites because they're not selling services but opportunities, and they're not in common use by a significant proportion of the population.
Problems with Active Schemas
In our view active schemas are too simplistic. Yahoo effectively prohibits service-specific fields, and Google Base permits only service_type as a service-specific field. Not useful if you're selling 5 kinds of garden waste services!
Conclusion
There is a need for a specific microformat dedicated to providing detailed universal structure to services provided to businesses and consumers.
Authors
- Wowitim 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
