微格式的 hRecipe 与 Schema 的 Recipe
我想知道 Microformat 的 hRecipe 和 Schema.org 的 Recipe 以及搜索引擎如何对待每一个。
除了代码上的差异以及前者是开放而后者是专有这一事实之外，搜索引擎如何对待每一种以及哪一种更好地实现，两者都< strong>从长远的角度和SEO的角度来看？
I would like to know what are the main differences between Microformat's hRecipe and Schema.org's Recipe and how search engines treat each one.
Besides the differences in code and the fact that the former is open while the latter is propietary, how do search engines treat each one and which one is better to implement, both from a long-term perspective and a SEO perspective?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
Schema.org 与 Google、Bing、Yahoo! 和 Yandex
自从您提出这个问题以来，Microformat 的 hRecipe 已更新为 microformats2 为 h-recipe，但除此之外你的问题在六年多后仍然具有现实意义并且值得回答。
搜索引擎巨头 Google、Microsoft (Bing) 和 Yahoo! 以及 Yandex（俄罗斯和全球其他地区流行的搜索引擎）合作创建了 Schema.org 及其架构。
这种合作是 Schema.org 和 Microformats 之间最大的区别；它确实并且可能会继续对各方如何对待其他方定义的模式产生影响。
您可以在 Schema.org 常见问题解答中了解他们创建它的原因以及他们如何处理其他格式。
具体来说，您可能对他们的答案感兴趣......
更容易实现的模式是获得最多支持的模式；在本例中，这似乎是 Schema.org 的 Recipe。虽然上述所有搜索引擎仍然支持微格式，但一些 Google 关于结构化数据和丰富网页摘要的官方文档。
有趣的是，Google 推荐了一种名为 JSON-LD 的结构化数据新语法。
JSON-LD：结构化数据的未来？
从长远来看，您可能需要考虑采用越来越流行的 JSON-LD 标记语法 使用 Schema.org Recipe 架构，甚至 Bing 现在也支持该架构（ 以下是演示该功能的示例） bing.com/webmaster/help/markup-recipes-da2b3faa" rel="nofollow noreferrer">他们的文档没有提及它。
Pinterest 的有趣支持
流行的内容发现平台 Pinterest 支持这两种模式，甚至支持新的 JSON-LD 语法（尽管其文档中没有明确提及）。
尽管 Schema.org 越来越受欢迎和采用，但 Pinterest 似乎为 h-recipe 微格式提供了更大的支持，将
e-instructions作为受支持的类，而 Schema.org 相应的recipeInstructionscode> 属性不是受支持的属性。目前尚不清楚这是否是故意的，甚至不清楚他们实际上更喜欢哪种模式，但如果您打算专门针对该平台进行开发，则值得记住。
Schema.org with Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and Yandex
Since you asked this question, Microformat's hRecipe has been updated with microformats2 as h-recipe, but otherwise your question remains relevant and is worth answering more than 6 years later.
Search engine giants, Google, Microsoft (Bing), and Yahoo!, along with Yandex (a popular search engine in Russia and elsewhere globally) collaborated to create Schema.org and the schemas therein.
This collaboration is the biggest differentiator between Schema.org and Microformats; it does and will likely continue to have an impact on how each treats schemas defined by other parties.
You can read about why they created it and how they treat other formats in the Schema.org FAQ.
Specifically, you may be interested in their answers to…
The schema better to implement is the one with the most support; in this case, that appears to be Schema.org's Recipe. While all of the above search engines still support microformats, mentions of it have disappeared from some of Google's official documentation regarding structured data and rich snippets.
Interestingly, Google recommends a newer syntax for structured data called JSON-LD.
JSON-LD: The future of structured data?
From a long-term perspective, you may want to consider adopting the evermore popular JSON-LD markup syntax with the Schema.org Recipe schema, which even Bing is supporting now ( here are examples demonstrating it ) despite their documentation having no mention of it.
Pinterest's interesting support
The popular content discovery platform Pinterest supports both schemas and even supports the new JSON-LD syntax (though it is not explicitly mentioned in their documentation).
Despite Schema.org's growing popularity and adoption, Pinterest offers seemingly greater support for the h-recipe microformat with their inclusion of
e-instructionsas a supported class, whereas Schema.org's correspondingrecipeInstructionsproperty is not a supported property.It's unclear if this is intentional or even which schema they actually prefer, but it is worth keeping in mind if you intend to develop specifically for this platform.
hRecipe基于类属性，而schema的Recipe基于多个属性。这些是标记的主要区别； hRecipe 向后兼容，而 Recipe 则不向后兼容，因为它使用 html5 数据属性。
三大搜索引擎表示他们会对两者一视同仁，但我不相信这一点；谷歌一直在推动他们的网络平台，让我相信他们会为 Recipe 添加额外的功能，尽管我无法证明这一点。即使他们没有在 Recipe 上投入额外的 SEO，您也可以确信他们会在 SERPS 中进行一些工作，这样如果您使用他们的专有标记，您就会受到关注......更多。以link元素的prefetch和prender属性为例；谷歌创建了预渲染，如果您在网站上使用它，瞧，它会在 SERPS 中为用户预渲染。预取不会。
我不知道如何区分长期视角和搜索引擎优化视角，我认为它们是一样的；我并不是说你不能，只是想解释更多。我之前从客户的角度思考过这个问题，并问自己关于微格式作为一个整体与架构的相同问题。这基本上是一个判断：微格式是经过尝试的真实格式；使用微格式数据的网站比使用架构的网站多了数百万个。他们哪儿也不去。并且（如前所述）它们向后兼容。
也就是说，schema 得到了三大巨头的支持，并且基于 html5，将来应该不会出现可移植性问题。前面也提到过，我确信这三个人都会在各自的搜索结果中奖励用户（尽管我没有证据）。但这里需要注意的是，网络上的一切都在快速变化。正如 Schema 突然出现一样，它也可能会被丢弃。我对此表示怀疑（尽管我希望），但这是有可能的。
我不能说哪个更好实现，但微格式肯定更容易实现，它们是基于类的，所以非常容易。
hRecipe is based on class attributes while schema's Recipe is based on multiple attributes. those are the main differences in the markup; hRecipe is backwards compatible whereas Recipe is not, because it's using html5 data attributes.
the big three search engines say that they'll treat both the same, however i don't buy that; Google has been pushing their web platform(s) long enough for me to think that they'll be adding extra juice to Recipe, even though i can't prove it. even if they aren't throwing extra seo at Recipe, you can be sure that they'll work something into SERPS so that if you are using their proprietary markup, you get noticed....more. take the link element's prefetch and prender attributes as an example; google created prerender and if you use it on your site, voila, it prerenders in SERPS for the user. prefetch does not.
i'm not sure how to differentiate between a long-term perspective or an seo perspective, i look @ them the same; i'm not saying that you can't, just trying to explain more. i have thought this over before from a clients perspective and asked myself these same questions in regards to microformats as a whole vs. schema. it's basically a judgement call: microformats are tried and true format; there are millions more sites using micoformatted data than there are using schema's. they aren't going anywhere. and (as noted earlier) they are backwards compatible.
that said, schema is backed by the big three, and being html5 based, shouldn't have portability problems in the future. also previously mentioned, i'm sure all three will be rewarding users (though i have no proof) in their respective search results. one caveat here though, is how fast everything on the web is moving; just as quickly as Schema popped up, it could conceivably be dropped. i doubt it (though i'm hoping) but it is a possibility.
i can't say which is better to implement, but microformats are certainly much easier to implement, they're class based and so freaking easy.
最好使用 schema.org 格式，因为该格式已被所有主要搜索引擎（Google、Yahoo 和 Bing）接受为标准。使用替代微格式可能意味着某些搜索引擎将无法识别该数据的特殊性并失去其提供的任何可能的优势。
It is better to use the schema.org formats as that has been accepted as standard by all of the major search engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing). Using an alternative microformat may mean that some of the search engines will not recognize that data as being special and losing any possible advantages it offers.