[log in to unmask] writes:
> On grouping -- good idea.
>
> Simpler would be:
> > <META NAME="DC.author.1" CONTENT="(type=name) Jon Knight">
> > <META NAME="DC.author.2" CONTENT="(type=name) Martin
> > Hamilton">
> > <META NAME="DC.author.2" CONTENT="(type=email) [log in to unmask]">
> > <META NAME="DC.author.1" CONTENT="(type=email) [log in to unmask]">
> > <META NAME="DC.author.2" CONTENT="(type=affiliation) Dept.
> > Computer Studies, Loughborough University">
> > <META NAME="DC.author.1" CONTENT="(type=affiliation) Dept.
> > Computer Studies, Loughborough University">
Although grouping is a good idea, the combination of numeric subfields
of a NAME attribute and parenthesized field qualifiers with labels like
"type" embedded in the value of the CONTENT attribute ... I'm getting
vertigo. I'd much rather start fresh than to continue with this hack
on top of hack. What you suggest may work, but it is not simple.
SGML and HTML have a good grouping construct (i.e. nested content).
We should use it even if it means changing the HTML spec, which is
changing anyway.
--
Daniel LaLiberte ([log in to unmask])
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~liberte/
|