On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Stephen Davis wrote:
> Just clueing in to this list and surprised to find the DC/HTML syntax still
> under discussion. But since it is: has using the <meta> tag to _enclose_
> the actual content data ("unminimized") been entirely eliminated as a
> possibility? E.g.,
>
> <meta name=DC.author>Twain, Mark, 1835-1910</meta>
I don't think that this change would make it past the W3C HTML ERB for
HTML 3.2, as it would break too many existing browsers that already think
that they can do HTML 3.2 (but you can give it a go; send a message to
[log in to unmask] with a Subject along the lines of "HTML 3.2 PR: Change
META to be a container") . It also doesn't help those of us that want
metadata in HTML 2.0 documents (yep, there are some of us out there
still).
I think we should aim for a more structured and flexible set of metadata
elements in a future HTML DTD; I was thinking of a set of elements that
would be available in addition to the existing META element. That way you
can have backwards compatibility for those things that need it (we're not
the only users of the META element don't forget) and also arrange for the
new elements to fit the needs of Dublin Core much better. Anybody fancy
working on that (maybe off list for the moment so the element naming
consensus doesn't get flooded out by SGML-heads arguing about DTDs :-) )?
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. *
|