Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

AMP HTML format specification requires schema:headline instead of schema:name #483

Closed
dbs opened this issue Oct 7, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

Comments

@dbs
Copy link

dbs commented Oct 7, 2015

The AMP HTML format specification at https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/spec/amp-html-format.md states:

The following properties of CreativeWork must be present:
* headline

Please use http://schema.org/name as the required property instead of http://schema.org/headline. schema:name better matches the broad categories of all CreativeWorks, versus the much more article-oriented schema:headline.

Similarly, alternativeHeadline is recommended. It would be better to recommend the broader http://schema.org/alternateName.

See also schemaorg/schemaorg#205

@jvandriel
Copy link

+1

@danbri
Copy link
Contributor

danbri commented Oct 7, 2015

When AMP is being used for news articles, I think 'headline', 'alternativeHeadline' are fine. But I agree that for broader applicability the more generic properties would be more appropriate.

@Aaranged
Copy link

Aaranged commented Oct 7, 2015

+1 to making "name" rather than "headline" a required property. As the Dans have noted, "headline" is not appropriate for some content, but "name" is universally applicable to any CreativeWork.

For example it is not uncommon to see web pages (i.e. CreativeWork sub-type WebPage) without anything like an on-page "headline" at all, but any well-formed WebPage has a <title> tag, where that value for <title> is almost always appropriate for the "name" property.

@jmadler
Copy link
Contributor

jmadler commented Oct 8, 2015

Related to #491

@jmadler
Copy link
Contributor

jmadler commented Oct 15, 2015

Obsoleted as per #593

@jmadler jmadler closed this as completed Oct 15, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants