Jon Knight <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Misha Wolf <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> <META NAME = "DC.publisher.name"
>> CONTENT = "I think it is "Bloggs & Bloggs" but I
>> need to check this)">
>
> Wow, a blast from the past. :-) When we were originially discussing
> qualifiers back in the dim distant past, this was known as the "dot
> kludge" approach
Actually there is a way of looking at this as not being a kludge,
and I still favour it. One problem is if you have a scheme whose
character set can't go in an SGML name -- no SGML qoting is possible
in the NAME part, although one could adopt a convention, like %dd
except that % isn't allowed.
Personally I'd like to use something like
NAME="dc.publisher.name/BCIP-1996"
where BCIP-1996 is the naming authority responsible for the field/scheme
called "name".
Another way would be to be able to reference a "profile" or registry
in which all your shceme names were defined:
<META
NAME="dc.scheme.bciom"
URL="http://where/you/can/get/a/definition/of/the/profile"
CONTENT="BSI:12008-1997, British Cataloguing in Online Media"
>
where the CONTENT identifies a hypothetical standard to which all the
given schemes relate, and CONTENT is a title or identifying name.
Now, I could say
<META NAME="dc.publisher.bciom.address"
CONTENT="Haynes Vicarage, Haynes, Beds MK45 3QP">
<META NAME="dc.publisher.oclc.address"
CONTENT="http://www.vicarage-books.co.uk">
Search engines who don't care about the extra precision can index
all the publisher fields as "publisher"; others can have the precision.
I was hoping to write this up earlier, but am still mulling over details.
Lee
|