[Update on 10-Jun-2011: The answer to the question of the title is "not really" -- see the update at the bottom of this post and the comments for more information.]
Yesterday Google, Microsoft Bing, and Yahoo! announced a project to promote machine-readable markup for structured data on web pages.
Many sites are generated from structured data, which is often stored in databases. When this data is formatted into HTML, it becomes very difficult to recover the original structured data. Many applications, especially search engines, can benefit greatly from direct access to this structured data. On-page markup enables search engines to understand the information on web pages and provide richer search results in order to make it easier for users to find relevant information on the web. Markup can also enable new tools and applications that make use of the structure.
The problem is, I think, that the markup they describe on there site generates invalid HTML. Did they really do this?
This is a preview of
Does the Google/Bing/Yahoo Schema.org Markup Promote Invalid HTML?. Read the full post (331 words, 1:19 minutes estimated reading time)
School is out and the summer heat has started, but there is no signs yet that the threads of technology change are slowing down. This week’s threads include a healthy review of the Google Book Search lawsuit settlement, the downside of recommendation engines, and how academics are contributing to Wikipedia.
Feel free to send this to others you think might be interested in the topics. If you find these threads interesting and useful, you might want to add the Thursday Threads RSS Feed to your feed reader or subscribe to e-mail delivery using the form to the right. If you would like a more raw and immediate version of these types of stories, watch my FriendFeed stream (or subscribe to its feed in your feed reader). Comments and tips, as always, are welcome.
This is a preview of
Thursday Threads: Google Book Search summary, Bad Side of Filtering, Academics Editing Wikipedia. Read the full post (929 words, 3:43 minutes estimated reading time)