Paul Miller <[log in to unmask]>
> [...] the HTML perfectionists have finally battered me down with
> their arguments that we must comply with the HTML2 DTD.
I think it's OK to comply with HTML 3.2, for what that's worth.
However, the HTML 2.0 DTD must be read in conjunction with RFC 1866;
there is no corresponding RFC for HTML 3.2: it's basically proprietary
right now, owned by the W3C.
>> p.s. I agree with Lee's suggestion of preferring "mailto:" in this particular
>> case. However, I'm not sure it will help with schemes for which no precedent
>> exists in HTML. Anyone for "issn:01-234-16791" ?
Yes; there are currently proposals for
urn:isbn:nnnnnnnn
and it's easy to see that
urn:issn:jjjjjjjjj
is the same sort of thing.
The concern about name conflicts is value, although
dc:issn:01-234-16971
would solve that.
> <META NAME="DC.identifier"
> CONTENT="(SCHEME=issn) 01-234-16791">
I think this is getting finnicky to type.
> <META NAME="DC.identifier"
> CONTENT="(SCHEME issn) 01-234-16791">
would work fine. Of course, you coud do it the IETF MIME way:
CONTENT="dc.issn:01-234-38232;scheme=issn"
using a MIME-style parameter. I really do think it's better to use
a syntax that already does what we need and is already sanctioned and used
in similar contexts if we can.
The only problem with it (and it may be a big one) is that you can't put
a ; inside a value, e.g. for a title. Well, we can't have an oe ligature
either, but perhaps ; is more common. Is that a problem?
CONTENT="dc.title:journal of punctuation; can't do it;scheme=publication"
well, it's unambiguous I suppose, maybe it doesn't matter.
Comments?
Lee
|