Warning: This tool or project is no longer maintained and kept available only for archival purposes. Since GoodRelations and schema.org have evolved significantly in the past years, the current status available on this page is unlikely to function as expected. We take no responsibility for any damage caused by the use of this outdated work, to the extent legally possible.

Due to a lack of resources, we are unable to provide support for this project outside of consulting projects or sponsored research. Please contact us if you can contribute resources to update and enhance these resources.

GoodRelations - The Web Vocabulary for E-Commerce

This is the archive of the goodrelations dicussion list

GoodRelations is a standardized vocabulary for product, price, and company data that can (1) be embedded into existing static and dynamic Web pages and that (2) can be processed by other computers. This increases the visibility of your products and services in the latest generation of search engines, recommender systems, and other novel applications.

[goodrelations] GoodRelations in RDFa: HTML or XHTML?

László Török ltorokjr at gmail.com
Mon Mar 28 12:17:27 CEST 2011


thank you all for your suggestions!

Kind regards,

2011/3/28 Martin Hepp <martin.hepp at ebusiness-unibw.org>

> Dear Laszlo:
> You do not have to polish an existing HTML4 or buggy HTML page into valid
> XHTML or HTML5 before adding GoodRelations in RDFa.
> Most RDFa parsers, e.g. PyRDFa, are able to correctly extract RDF from RDFa
> in "buggy" HTML markup.
> However, the cleaner the markup, the more reliable the extraction, so you
> make your pages more accessible for novel search engines if your markup is
> consistent.
> Buggy markup is more problematic if you use RDFa closely interwoven with
> existing visible page content, it is less of a problem if you use RDFa in
> "snippet style".
> For more info, see
> http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/RDFaAuthoring#RDFa_in_Snippet_Style
> In general: Lack of well-formedness is more problematic than e.g. misspelt
> HTML element names or invalid attributes (e.g. missing "alt" for images).
> The main obstacle for RDFa parsers are those cases where they have to guess
> the position of a missing closing element.
> Bottom-line: If you can keep your page valid XHTML, try to do that. But if
> can't, this should not stop you from adding GoodRelations to your page.
> GoodRelations in RDFa in a page not yet being valid XHTML or HTML5 is better
> than no GoodRelations ;-)
> Best wishes
> Martin Hepp
> On Mar 28, 2011, at 11:14 AM, László Török wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've started to play around with the GoodRelations vocab recently, after
> trying to add RDFa content to an existing HTML page I discovered that the
> RDFa was only defined for XHTML.
> >
> > Now, we know there HTML parsers are quite tolerant and always try to make
> the best out of broken or not 100% valid markup.
> >
> > My question is: Having a legacy HTML4 page, do I NEED to transform it
> into a valid XHTML page to be able to add GR markup as RDFa to it? Or just
> change the doctype and leave it up to the crawlers?
> >
> > I went through some of the sources (Google etc.) but none of them
> explicitly stated the importance of a valid XHTML markup. Does anybody have
> any experience wrt this matter?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Laszlo
> > _______________________________________________
> > goodrelations mailing list
> > goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org
> > http://ebusiness-unibw.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goodrelations
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ebusiness-unibw.org/pipermail/goodrelations/attachments/20110328/b503f82c/attachment.html>

More information about the goodrelations mailing list