service-formats: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: = Current Service Schemas = This page will show the current landscape of markup on manufacturer and e-commerce sites as the basis for the design of an hService microformat. == Active Sch...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Current Service Schemas = | = Current Service Schemas = | ||
This page | 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 == | == Active Schemas == | ||
Revision as of 17:54, 28 March 2009
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)