Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???
On 07/23/2017 03:33 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote: On 07/23/2017 02:42 PM, Qebui Nehebkau wrote: *snip* I can't speak for anyone else - I can barely speak for myself - but I think I'd argue that, intuitively, if your structured data isn't logically part of your content, there's a good chance that it doesn't belong there at all. It logically describes the content, and because it is separate from the content it describes, is much easier to manage and inspect and bugfix. Just for example, with an audio, I can describe the creator as a person including the company the person works for etc. in JSON-LD without needing to have tags in the content for those things to add attributes to. That's information that is useful to machines especially when linking different objects from domains together but it isn't necessarily useful to the person reading the web page. So keeping the structured data separate from the content allows richer details to be added to the structured data for machines to read without needing to alter the design intended for the human readers of the page. Two audiences are thus served without needing to compromise the design for either, both machine and human. But the content for machines doesn't need to be sent to humans where they don't care about it, hence the desire for a standard header machines that do want it can send to have it included. A better example. I run an audio site (all legal, no piracy, I'm anti-DRM but also pro intellectual property) where users can select a category. There could be, say, 12 audios in that category, but the web page only displays one. If the user wants to listen to a different audio, they use a select menu. If its the same artist, there's enough info in the data-* attributes of the select menu items to swap the audio node w/o even an ajax call, If different artist, I do make an ajax call because more than just the audio node changes. With JSON-LD I can put structured data for all audios the person can play from that page into the JSON-LD. I can't do that with tag based structured data unless I make a div display display:none to contain all the other audios. I use libxml2 to create pages so I can modify any part of the DOM at any point allowing me to create the JSON-LD from the same data used to generate the page, so it is always in sync. I then can stuff it in the head node at the end. That's not possible with many platforms that send content before it is finished generating all the page, so JSON-LD for many may not have the kind of advantage I can from it, but the ability to describe objects available through user actions (such as select menu) but aren't part of the DOM when the page is sent is a huge benefit to me over tag based implementations of structured data. Hope that sheds some light on why I had an epiphany when I finally stopped to read about JSON-LD. Now, back on topic, a header would be nice so I only have to stuff it in the head when a machine is asking for it ;)
Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???
On 07/23/2017 02:42 PM, Qebui Nehebkau wrote: On 23 July 2017 at 14:12, Michael A. Peters wrote: It's a beautiful way to create structured data separate from the content, just like layout (CSS) is best kept separate from the content. [...] I wonder why people on this list don't like it. Reading about it was an epiphany for me, it's (in my opinion) the right way to do structured data, and far superior to sticking a bunch of attributes in tags - just like CSS selectors are far superior to sticking style attributes in tags. I can't speak for anyone else - I can barely speak for myself - but I think I'd argue that, intuitively, if your structured data isn't logically part of your content, there's a good chance that it doesn't belong there at all. It logically describes the content, and because it is separate from the content it describes, is much easier to manage and inspect and bugfix. Just for example, with an audio, I can describe the creator as a person including the company the person works for etc. in JSON-LD without needing to have tags in the content for those things to add attributes to. That's information that is useful to machines especially when linking different objects from domains together but it isn't necessarily useful to the person reading the web page. So keeping the structured data separate from the content allows richer details to be added to the structured data for machines to read without needing to alter the design intended for the human readers of the page. Two audiences are thus served without needing to compromise the design for either, both machine and human. But the content for machines doesn't need to be sent to humans where they don't care about it, hence the desire for a standard header machines that do want it can send to have it included.
Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???
On 23 July 2017 at 14:12, Michael A. Peters wrote: > It's a beautiful way to create structured data separate from the content, > just like layout (CSS) is best kept separate from the content. [...] I > wonder why people on this list don't like it. Reading about it was an > epiphany for me, it's (in my opinion) the right way to do structured data, > and far superior to sticking a bunch of attributes in tags - just like CSS > selectors are far superior to sticking style attributes in tags. > I can't speak for anyone else - I can barely speak for myself - but I think I'd argue that, intuitively, if your structured data isn't logically part of your content, there's a good chance that it doesn't belong there at all.
Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???
Interesting. It's a beautiful way to create structured data separate from the content, just like layout (CSS) is best kept separate from the content. I wonder why people on this list don't like it. Reading about it was an epiphany for me, it's (in my opinion) the right way to do structured data, and far superior to sticking a bunch of attributes in tags - just like CSS selectors are far superior to sticking style attributes in tags. Not meaning to start a holy war, it's just I didn't come across anything negative about it during my initial research on JSON-LD. Other than my own observation that it bloats the content sent to every client, hence the desire for a header specifying it is actually wanted before it is stuffed in the document head node. On 07/22/2017 10:12 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: 2¢: This list tends to disapprove of JSON-LD, so you should probably first run your proposal by a group that likes JSON-LD. Maybe public-rdf-comme...@w3.org referenced from https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/? Or an issue against https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org? Jeffrey On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote: I am (finally) starting to implement JSON-LD on a site, it generates a lot of data that is useless to the non-bot typical user. I'd prefer to only stick it in the head when the client is a crawler that wants it. Wouldn't it be prudent if agents that want JSON-LD can send a standardized header as part of their request so web apps can optionally choose to only send the JSON-LD data to clients that want it? Seems it would be kinder to mobile users on limited bandwidth if they didn't have to download a bunch of JSON that is meaningless to them. Is this the right group to suggest that?
Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???
Hypothetically, if search engines were to start picking up JSON-LD from linked files, which link rel type would this group consider most appropriate? Dan On 23 July 2017 at 06:12, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > 2¢: This list tends to disapprove of JSON-LD, so you should probably first > run your proposal by a group that likes JSON-LD. Maybe > public-rdf-comme...@w3.org referenced from https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/? > Or an issue against https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org? > > Jeffrey > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Michael A. Peters > > wrote: > > > I am (finally) starting to implement JSON-LD on a site, it generates a > lot > > of data that is useless to the non-bot typical user. > > > > I'd prefer to only stick it in the head when the client is a crawler that > > wants it. > > > > Wouldn't it be prudent if agents that want JSON-LD can send a > standardized > > header as part of their request so web apps can optionally choose to only > > send the JSON-LD data to clients that want it? Seems it would be kinder > to > > mobile users on limited bandwidth if they didn't have to download a bunch > > of JSON that is meaningless to them. > > > > Is this the right group to suggest that? > > >
