Add JSON-LD for EIPS

[fulldecent]

Extracted from PR at #2738

[MicahZoltu]

From CI:

Liquid Warning: Liquid syntax error (line 50): Unexpected character = in "page.status == "Draft" or page.status = "Last Call"" in /_layouts/eip.html

[fulldecent]

Corrected at b929e3d

[MicahZoltu]

Same comment as in #2738. You should get this added to the next EIPIP meeting agenda since it is a meta change.

[fulldecent]

EIPIP is not authoritative and does not have decision makers. Therefore it is ineffectual and that is why I left.

This current matter affects nobody, it is merely a HTML coding update, I believe it can be accepted with input only by a single person with commit access rather than requiring votes, socializing or other consensus measures.

[MicahZoltu]

Took another gander at this one and think it is fine.

[fulldecent]

Cool, thank you

[fulldecent]

Related: #2811

[axic]

I wonder why was my comment about the schema ignored in the old PR: #2738 (comment)

I suggested TechArticle with more fields.

See schema.org for the distinction:

TechArticle
Thing > CreativeWork > Article > TechArticle
A technical article - Example: How-to (task) topics, step-by-step, procedural troubleshooting, specifications, etc.

vs.

Article
Thing > CreativeWork > Article
An article, such as a news article or piece of investigative report. Newspapers and magazines have articles of many different types and this is intended to cover them all.

See also blog post.

I do not think EIPs should be considered as blog posts or news articles.

[axic]

Also as mentioned in #2738 (comment) this PR added the JSON+LD as a duplicate entry, given it already exists in _includes/head.html.

[axic]

Google's testing tool displays errors:

Can we be a bit more prudent about merging PRs?

[fulldecent]

@axic The JSON-LD in the head is NOT a conflict against this new JSON. The former regards the website a whole (WebSite) and the latter regards individual EIPs (Article or subclass).

[fulldecent]

@axic The Google tool shows errors. And that is fine. We do not currently require images for each EIP and I do not expect that to change soon.

Either way, I believe life is better with this PR merged and if images will be added then that can be considered separately.

SEO was an overarching concern for the EIPs project and this PR is aligned with that goal.

[fulldecent]

@axic Regarding TechArticle as more appropriate than Article. This is a good point, thank you. I support that change here: #2814

[MicahZoltu]

Can we be a bit more prudent about merging PRs?

I contend that this PR was an improvement, thus worth merging. It added JSON-LD content that improved SEO. I believe the errors/warnings are just "you can do better" things, and not all of them are possible for us to address (like the image tag, and probably publisher tag).

That being said, it would be nice to get the rest added like headline (EIP title), datePublished (same as created), dateModified (ideally the commit timestamp of the last commit to touch the EIP, but if not just datePublished perhaps), mainEntityOfPage (I'm not sure what this is, but presumably we have one!).

[fulldecent]

Other items in this PR -> #2816

Probably Google is flagging as "error" when warning is appropriate. But still, it's Google, and I used to work there, so --\_0_/-- #2816