On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Andy Powell wrote:
> Secondly, do we want to use a format that breaks HTML 2.0? If we go for
> Jon's 'Dot.kludge' approach (II in the Weibel list) now are we likely to
> get stuck with it long term? Does that matter? Will it be possible/easy
> to migrate to the cleaner HTML-be-damned approach (IV in the Weibel list)
> later on if the HTML DTD gets changed to incorporate it?
If we start looking at embedding metadata in HTML > 2.0 then we get to
choose how we do it and can have lots of nice extra attributes, CDATA in
the NAME attribute or whatever. We can determine whether we're looking at
Wilbur or HTML 8.0 or whatever by looking at the DOCTYPE line at the top
(good reason to encourage people to use it!). If we have a DOCTYPE saying
that its an HTML 2.0 DTD compliant (or no DTD) then we can assume the
"dot.kludge" embedded metadata scheme. Seems OK to me. Especially
seeing as the much of this inlined metadata is going to be automagically
generated by tools that will put the DOCTYPE lines in.
Tatty bye,
Jim'll
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon "Jim'll" Knight, Researcher, Sysop and General Dogsbody, Dept. Computer
Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, Leics., ENGLAND. LE11 3TU.
* I've found I now dream in Perl. More worryingly, I enjoy those dreams. *
|