Last Comment Bug 705534 - [SEO] Implement the Schema.org vocabulary
: [SEO] Implement the Schema.org vocabulary
Status: ASSIGNED
[kb=1082874]
:
Product: www.mozilla.org
Classification: Other
Component: General (show other bugs)
: unspecified
: All All
: -- enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Kohei Yoshino [:kohei]
: www-mozilla-com
Mentors:
http://schema.org/
Depends on: 705535 725905 764035 944936 969901 1127092
Blocks: 745355
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-11-27 05:52 PST by Kohei Yoshino [:kohei]
Modified: 2015-03-19 03:22 PDT (History)
6 users (show)
See Also:
Locale:
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---


Attachments

Description Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] 2011-11-27 05:52:00 PST
Documentation: http://schema.org/docs/documents.html

I've implemented some vocabulary on the Mozilla Japan site at http://mozilla.jp/ -- still in progress so may contain mistakes.
Comment 1 Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] 2011-11-27 08:36:36 PST
And here's the Rich Snippets Testing Tool you can test with:
http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmozilla.jp%2Ffirefox%2F
Comment 2 mcbmoz 2011-11-27 10:45:48 PST
Schema.org is somewhat controversial in terms of the standards community. The SEO working group will need to consider whether Mozilla wants to support it by incorporating it.

http://tantek.com/2011/155/t6/schemaorg-open-standards-community-must-reject-schema-org

Something, you might ask Tantek and fantasi to weigh in on, as Mozilla's standards advocates.
Comment 3 Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] 2011-11-27 10:50:37 PST
(In reply to mcbmoz from comment #2)
> http://tantek.com/2011/155/t6/schemaorg-open-standards-community-must-reject-
> schema-org

This is an old piece of information; see http://blog.schema.org/ for the current status of Schema.org.
Comment 4 mcbmoz 2011-11-27 10:59:50 PST
Kohei, I'm very aware of the current information, it is still not something we have decided to support by default. I recommend following up with the SEO group on the standards they continue to discuss and implement.
Comment 5 Anthony Ricaud (:rik) 2012-05-11 11:22:28 PDT
Which schemas are we talking about? I have not looked at schema.org closely, what is the best "flavour" of markup?
Comment 7 Anthony Ricaud (:rik) 2012-05-14 04:39:05 PDT
Ok, so that seems like a meta bug. We should open bugs for every markup we want. I can see any of those as [good first bug]s.
Comment 8 Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] 2012-05-14 04:48:01 PDT
Disclaimer: I don't know Mozilla's current stance on Schema.org. I believe it's a promising practice and worth implementing now, but you guys might want to discuss how to deal with it.
Comment 9 Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] 2012-05-14 04:55:35 PDT
(In reply to Kohei Yoshino from comment #8)
> it's a promising practice

Schema.org has been referenced from HTML5 spec, e.g.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/sections.html#the-article-element
Comment 10 Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] 2012-06-08 04:30:23 PDT
News! Schema.org 1.0 is finally coming later this month:
http://blog.schema.org/2012/06/semtech-rdfa-microdata-and-more.html
Comment 11 Chris More [:cmore] 2013-08-29 16:59:11 PDT
Here is a recent article

http://yoast.com/schema-org-genesis-2-0/

From research that I've done. The standard is pretty well set now and all major search engines support it.

How about we focus first on schema.org markup for the Firefox download page? This is a much smaller scope.

If we look at /firefox/new/ and what makes up that page, we could do the following:

Base template add vocabulary:

<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" id="wrapper">

Firefox base template add "image":

<h2><a href="/en-US/"><img itemprop="image" src="//mozorg.cdn.mozilla.net/media/img/firefox/new/header-firefox.png?2013-06" alt="Firefox for desktop"/></a></h2>

/firefox/new/ template add description:

<ul id="features"> <li>Proudly<br/>non-profit</li> <li>Innovating<br/>for you</li> <li itemprop="description">Fast, flexible,<br/>secure</li> </ul>

One issue is that the word "Firefox" is not on the /firefox/new/ template except when the download buttons are rendered. This makes it difficult to set the name and price markup. It could be done like the following, but then it would set it on all pages where the buttons are rendered.

Download button helper add "name" and "price":

 <span class="download-content"> <strong itemprop="name" class="download-title">Firefox</strong> <span itemprop="offers" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" class="download-subtitle"> <span itemprop="price">Free</span> Download</span> <span class="download-lang">English (US)</span> <span class="download-platform">Linux</span> </span>

The word "free" is only on the meta description and download buttons.
Comment 12 Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] 2013-08-29 17:04:29 PDT
That's Bug 764035. http://schema.org/SoftwareApplication is better on the Firefox product page. I have implemented it on http://www.mozilla.jp/firefox/ but actually Google ignores that.
Comment 13 Chris More [:cmore] 2013-08-30 08:53:20 PDT
(In reply to Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] from comment #12)
> That's Bug 764035. http://schema.org/SoftwareApplication is better on the
> Firefox product page. I have implemented it on
> http://www.mozilla.jp/firefox/ but actually Google ignores that.

What use-cases and benefits could be had by using schema.org on non-product pages? Most of our SEO improvements are about getting products in front of as many eyes.
Comment 15 Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] 2014-02-05 13:21:56 PST
Schema.org is spreading around the site, and it has become a coding standard...

Blog and BlogPosting for the Twitter timeline:
https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/pull/1642/files

Events for the MWC schedule 
https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/pull/1662/files

I'll send a PR to add WebPage (and its variants), WPHeader, SiteNavigationElement, WebPageElement and WPFooter.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.