service-formats: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(link to overview page, note problem with theoretical issues) |
m (fix link) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Current Service Schemas == | == Current Service Schemas == | ||
This page shows a little of the current markup landscape on [[services]] sites as the basis for the design of a service microformat. | This page shows a little of the current markup landscape on [[service|services]] sites as the basis for the design of a service microformat. | ||
== existing in use formats == | == existing in use formats == | ||
Latest revision as of 19:37, 2 April 2009
Current Service Schemas
This page shows a little of the current markup landscape on services sites as the basis for the design of a service microformat.
existing in use formats
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 current formats
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!
- Such problems should cite real world examples of services documented on service-examples, otherwise the problems are purely theoretical. Tantek 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
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)