Reputation: 38382
Should i use <meta>
to show UserInteraction http://schema.org/UserInteraction or can i use span
Should i use this way only
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Article">
<span itemprop="name">How to Tie a Reef Knot</span>
by <span itemprop="author">John Doe</span>
This article has been tweeted 1203 times and contains 78 user comments.
<meta itemprop="interactionCount" content="UserTweets:1203"/>
<meta itemprop="interactionCount" content="UserComments:78"/>
</div>
Or can i use
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Article">
<span itemprop="name">How to Tie a Reef Knot</span>
by <span itemprop="author">John Doe</span>
This article has been tweeted
<span itemprop="interactionCount" content="UserTweets:1203" >1203</span> times and
contains <span itemprop="interactionCount" content="UserComments:78">1203</span>
user comments.
</div>
Also will Google and other Engines show userlikes and comment no's for reviews and article
Upvotes: 3
Views: 2449
Reputation: 2481
I'm trying to get an answer to that myself. I don't think you can use content outside of a meta element though, so I don't think that the example would be valid.
Ideally I would probably place it in the data element
<data itemprop="interactionCount" value="UserTweets:1203">1203 Tweets</data>
<data itemprop="interactionCount" value="UserComments:78">78 user comments</data>
The value attribute is supposed to be the 'machine value', though I'm not sure of how well this is supported at the moment.
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 13406
You can use either one; there is no semantic difference. In fact, if you look at the last example in section 2.2 of the Microdata spec, it gives an example much like yours:
There is no semantic difference, for instance, between the following two examples:
<figure>
<img src="castle.jpeg">
<figcaption>
<span itemscope><span itemprop="name">The Castle</span></span> (1986)
</figcaption>
</figure>
<span itemscope><meta itemprop="name" content="The Castle"></span>
<figure>
<img src="castle.jpeg">
<figcaption>The Castle (1986)</figcaption>
</figure>
Upvotes: 2