Skip to content

Conversation

@RichardLitt
Copy link
Contributor

The source for ogp.me has the prefix on the head, so it should be in the example too. This makes it closer to the tags, and is in accordance with feedback from @ptarjan's comment here

The source for ogp.me has the `prefix` on the head, so it should be in the example to. This makes it closer to the tags, and is in accordance with feedback from @ptarjan's comment [here](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8235687/open-graph-namespace-declaration-html-with-xmlns-or-head-prefix#comment16029564_8241755)
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 4, 2015

Thank you for reporting this issue and appreciate your patience. We've notified the core team for an update on this issue. We're looking for a response within the next 30 days or the issue may be closed.

@RichardLitt
Copy link
Contributor Author

@chuckreynolds ping?

@chuckreynolds
Copy link
Contributor

@RichardLitt sup man? fwiw I don't have any ownership of this repo at all so I can't push things along :) or if you needed something else lmk.

@RichardLitt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ah, my bad, too quick on the notification there. Thanks anyway. :)

Facebook, what's up with this? A year old PR is pretty long, eh?

@chuckreynolds
Copy link
Contributor

Not unusual. they abandoned the FB plugin and this site seems very slow to get updates.

@ptarjan
Copy link
Contributor

ptarjan commented Apr 5, 2016

A year late :)

I actually did this intentionally as people who are just copying and pasting are safer by putting it on the <html> because they often will have metadata marked up in their documents. So broad is better for copy-and-pasters. If you know what you're doing, you can hug closer to your tag.

The chance of someone redefining the og: prefix is very low, so it doesn't cost much in terms of bugs, but gains something in terms of <body> tags, so I left it here.

@ptarjan ptarjan closed this Apr 5, 2016
@RichardLitt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Interesting. Maybe a comment would be good, in the code, stating that this was intentional? Comments are cheap.

@ptarjan
Copy link
Contributor

ptarjan commented Apr 5, 2016

@RichardLitt well a comment in the thing they paste in would be wasted as I'm just catering to the copy-pasters. I'm happy to have this PR serve as a comment.

@RichardLitt RichardLitt deleted the patch-2 branch April 5, 2016 22:10
@RichardLitt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sounds good to me.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants