> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:53:40 +1000
> From: Andrew Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> John
>
> In your reply to Joyce you wrote:
>
> >> ... could the matter, in this
> >> example, be handled by way of extension: <META
> NAME="DC.Creator.Email"
> >> CONTENT="..."> and so on, to include any number of points of contact
> >> such as: MailingAddress; TelephoneNumber, etc?
>
> > No. That style of extension was considered (at length) and dropped.
>
> Could you expand on this interesting but tantalisingly brief statement?
> Why was this style of extension dropped?
Andrew,
This style of extension was only dropped from the HTML encoding, but
is being pursued in the XML/RDF encoding. I believe it was thought
to be a more efficient use of our consensus-building energy and time
to concentrate on resolving this fairly controversial extension in the
more expressive context of XML/RDF rather than in HTML. I'm loath to
revive the controversy, which had to do with claims that a) contact
information is or is not properly a sub-component of a creator and
b) contact information is better referenced via external standards
such as vCard, and XML/RDF is good at that.
-John
>
> Regards
> Andrew Wilson
> National Archives of Australia
> Ph: +61 2 6212 3694
> Fax: +61 2 6212 3989
> email: [log in to unmask]
> National Archives on the Web: http://www.naa.gov.au
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|