>I believe Terry was concerned about the use of META outside a document
that it was describing; apparently there's a rule that META cannot
describe another document not included in the same HTML file (is that
right?) -- the way out is to say that the file containing the META tag
is not an HTML file (it just bears a remarkable resemblance to one).
There is no specific rule, but that was clearly the intent of both
HTML 2.0 and the original DC.
If the way out is to say that it isn't an HTML file, you have achieved
just about nothing. Now, if you want to continue to use HTML (and
why?) you could invent some label to put in some element in the HEAD
indicating that the *content* of the HTML file was metadata about
other things, and then establish conventions for the use of the
elements allowed in the BODY for representing DC semantics. Then
you'd have the advantage of nestable lists, for example.
However, the great strength of DC 0.1 is that it defines semantics.
The "User's Guide" conflates semantics with syntax without justifying
the semantics in the first place. That needs to be done before you
can reasonably decide how to represent those semantics (in SGML,
HTML, RTF, or anything else).
Further to the point of "not an HTML file," what is it, then? Is
it SGML, in some DTD other than HTML 2.0? If so, where is that DTD,
what is the FPI for it, and so on? How are search engines, or any
other applications for that matter, to distinguish between the two?
Are you going to serve the not-HTML as text/html?
Regards,
--
Terry Allen O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. [log in to unmask]
"In going on with these experiments, how many pretty systems do we build,
which we soon find ourselves obliged to destroy?" - Benjamin Franklin
A Davenport Group sponsor http://www.ora.com/davenport/
|