If more sites provided explicit machine-readable entry points for crawlers, indexing could become a lot less wasteful. Right now crawlers spend a lot of effort rediscovering the same structure over and over.
It also raises interesting questions about whether sites will eventually provide different views for humans vs. automated agents in a more formalized way.
I've found myself falling pretty hard on the side of making APIs work for humans and expecting LLM providers to optimize around that. I don't need an MCP for a CLI tool, for example, I just need a good man page or `--help` documentation.
But semantic HTML is exactly that explicit machine-readable entrypoint. I am firmly entrenched in the opinion that HTML, and the DOM is only for machines to read, it just happens to be also somewhat understandable to some humans. Take an average webpage, have a look at all characters(bytes) in there: often two third won't ever be shown to humans.
Point being: we don't need to invent something new. We just need to realize we already have it and use it correctly. Other than this requiring better understanding of web tech, it has no downsides. The low hanging fruit being the frameworks out there that should really do a better job of leveraging semantics in their output.
Makes you think, right?
This question raises an interesting question about if this would exacerbate supply chain injection attacks. Show the innocuous page to the human, another to the bot.
A lot of known crawlers will get a crawler-optimized version of the page