Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • on the "we can use schema.org": meta.stackexchange.com/a/136414/997587 (not sure if you know this already) Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 18:52
  • 3
    @starball It's not what I'd consider a complete implementation. For example, I'm not even seeing the attributes for data published, created, and/or modified. Also not seeing the Schema.org representations for license. I'd have to dig a lot deeper into Schema.org (it's been a while since I've worked with it) to understand what the right things to do would be, but I don't think what's there is really the best. Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 18:58
  • 2
    I'm also not sure how useful Schema.org is. Although conceptually useful, it would only matter if people wanted to build tools to take advantage of the data. Before looking too deep in that direction, it may be more prudent to see if adding the Schema.org metadata in a structured format would enable tools to be built that couldn't otherwise be built. Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 19:14