On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Lauren Wood wrote:
> > 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.
Because not all the subelements we'll want are SCHEME subelements. For
example the Relation element has a TYPE subelement as well. Having the
extra subelement name in isn't too much hassle and means that you can
have multiple subelements for a single element.
> > III. Slip-in-a-SCHEME Kludge:
> >
> > B. CONS: 1. OK, OK... its broken HTML
>
> Enough reason for some of us.
Yeah! At last someone else who's anal about their HTML validation. I
was beginning to think I was the only one who used a validator... :-)
> 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.
Sounds good to me. What's the chance of getting someone from say Netscape
or Microsoft (the guys who seem to run the W3C these days :-) ) to cast an
eye over this idea and get them to help shove the idea into HTML 3.3 or
4.0 or whatever? Netscape certainly seem keen on the idea of metadata
what with their adopting a version of SOIF and playing with LDAP.
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. *
|