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.
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
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.
(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.
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.
Which schemas are we talking about? I have not looked at schema.org closely, what is the best "flavour" of markup?
Mainly http://schema.org/WebPage (the breadcrumb example is wrong, see http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/10) http://schema.org/Article (e.g. http://www.mozilla.org/about/history.html) http://schema.org/Blog (e.g. http://blog.mozilla.org/) http://schema.org/ContactPoint (e.g. http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/contact) http://schema.org/Event (e.g. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/events) http://schema.org/JobPosting (e.g. http://careers.mozilla.org/en-US/) http://schema.org/Person (e.g. http://blog.mozilla.org/press/bios/) http://schema.org/SoftwareApplication (e.g. http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/projects/)
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.
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.
(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
News! Schema.org 1.0 is finally coming later this month: http://blog.schema.org/2012/06/semtech-rdfa-microdata-and-more.html
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.
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.
(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.
Page types: http://schema.org/WebPage (generic) http://schema.org/AboutPage http://schema.org/ContactPage Pages structure: http://schema.org/WPHeader http://schema.org/SiteNavigationElement http://schema.org/WebPageElement http://schema.org/WPFooter Other possible types on www.mozilla.org: Breadcrumbs: the syntax is still fluid according to the public-vocabs list. Products: http://schema.org/Product http://schema.org/SoftwareApplication http://schema.org/MobileApplication Organization: http://schema.org/Organization http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.ca/2013/05/using-schemaorg-markup-for-organization.html Articles: http://schema.org/Article http://schema.org/TechArticle (for release notes) Contact page: http://schema.org/ContactPoint
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.