service-formats: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| 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
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)