>From one of the lurkers on this mailing list (I usually let Lee Quin do
all the talking)...
> Possible SCHEME schemes:
>
> I. Discourage use of schemes for the time being
>
> Rationale: One step at a time... if we promote a simple,
> straightforward means of embedding metadata in HTML, then the
> likelihood of adoption goes up.
Maybe, except a lot of the straightforward means of getting metadata
onto the Web is
a) a reason for it e.g. indexing/searching
b) easier authoring (which is why I've been lurking on this list)
> II. Dot.kludge approach:
>
> <META NAME="DC.author.SCHEME.e-mail" CONTENT="[log in to unmask]">
>
> Rationale: keep HTML pure
Why not <META NAME="DC.author.email" CONTENT="[log in to unmask]"> to
make it simpler?
This one would work as a stop-gap until option 4 can be implemented.
> III. Slip-in-a-SCHEME Kludge:
>
> <META NAME="DC.author SCHEME=e-mail CONTENT="[log in to unmask]">
>
> Rationale: It may not be strictly kosher HTML, but it won't really
hurt,
> and it allows a cleaner implementation of SCHEME
>
> A. PROS: 1. easy to ignore SCHEME specifications for brain-dead
robots
> 2. keeps SCHEME separate from NAMEd element types
>
> B. CONS: 1. OK, OK... its broken HTML
Enough reason for some of us.
> IV. HTML-be-damned approach (Miller and Miller)
>
> <META NAME = "DC.date"
> TYPE = "creation"
> SCHEME = "ISO31"
> CONTENT = "1996-06-17">
> <LINK REL = SCHEMA.dc HREF =
> "http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core_elements#date">
> <LINK REL = SCHEMA.iso31 REFERENCE =
> "ISO 31-1:1992 Quantities & units -- Part 1: space & time">
>
> Rationale: HTML is still moving, and there is no one at the wheel
> anyway... so lets do this right from the start.
>
> A. PROS: 1. good foundation for a complete scheme specification;
> some chance it may stand up to serious use
> 2. very flexible
>
> B. CONS: 1. Breaks HTML validators big time
> (there go Jon's counselling fees)
> 2. No consensus at this time
> 3. has the potential to become very complex (otherside of
the
> flexibility PRO coin).
This approach should also be known as the "for a future version of HTML"
approach. Not having been on this list for very long, I don't know
whether everyone here feels themselves restricted to HTML 2.0. If not, a
proposal (with reasons) of the TYPE and SCHEME attributes could be made
to the W3C. Given that I haven't been active on this meta2 list, I don't
feel I could write the proposal myself, but would certainly join in on
behalf of SoftQuad in proposing it.
Lauren
--
Dr Lauren Wood, Technical Product Manager, SoftQuad, Inc.
108-10070 King George Hwy, Surrey, B.C., Canada V3T 2W4
[log in to unmask] http://www.sq.com Tel: +1-604-585 8394
|