We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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
I was looking at https://schema.org/Review today. I noticed the microdata example uses description instead of reviewBody.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think you’re right, reviewBody should be used there instead of description, as these seem to be the actual/complete reviews.
reviewBody
description
→ #909
Sorry, something went wrong.
@inetbiz, actually all formats in Example 1 use description. Example 2 uses reviewBody.
@danbri, can you take a look please? Our Embedded review sample at dgc/search/data-types uses reviewBody, so I went with that for this recipe sample.
This issue is being tagged as Stale due to inactivity.
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
I was looking at https://schema.org/Review today. I noticed the microdata example uses description instead of reviewBody.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: