On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Misha Wolf wrote:
> Careful. The semantics of the [LANG] attribute are governed by the [HTML]
> spec. The definition is:
>
> This attribute specifies the base language of an element's attribute
> values and text content. The default value of this attribute is unknown.
>
> What Titia is asking for is provided by the [HREFLANG] attribute:
>
> This attribute specifies the base language of the resource designated by
> href and may only be used when href is specified.
>
> This attribute is, regrettably, unavailable with the META element. We could
> ask for it to be added, but I'm not sure it's worth it, with RDF almost
> ready.
>
> In any case, I don't think this is the right way to do language versions.
> HTTP provides language negotiation, which is supported by most browsers.
> I think you should have just one, generic, URI and rely on HTTP language
> negotiation to select the right language version.
the question then is when to use HTTP language headers and when to use
HTML-language meta-tags?
HTTP negotiations between browser and server is ok for get-requests
once you have identified the resource you want.
HTML-meta-tags are better for indexing purposes and searching.
It will be up to implementors I guess to decide what metadata to code via
HTML and what to exchange via HTTP protocol.
>
> > > A similar example with the DC.Description tag could be given.
> >
> > Not sure. Given the current wording of the RFC, Description cannot be 'an
> > identifier that links to a description' in the way that Rights can be 'an
> > identifier that links to a rights management statement'.
>
> There are a few such inconsistencies in [DC RFC 1]. The DC Data Model WG
> [DC DM WG] has been going through the elements one by one, trying to get rid
> of such inconsistencies. I think we should view the definition of the
> Description element:
>
> A textual description of the content of the resource, including
> abstracts in the case of document-like objects or content
> descriptions in the case of visual resources.
>
> as permitting a link to "A textual description of the ...".
yes, I think that would be useful, in case one wants to use
existing abstracts.
>
> BTW, on a syntax point, HTML 4.0, approved by the W3C on 1997-12-18, defines
> both LANG and SCHEME attributes for the [META] element. The syntax Titia
> used in her examples:
>
> > > <META NAME="DC.Rights"
> > > CONTENT="(SCHEME=URL)http://www.konbib.nl/kb/red/cpright-en.html">
>
> is not recommended.
not recommended as HTML 2.0/3.2 notation?
>
> [HTML] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40
> [LANG] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/dirlang.html#adef-lang
> [HREFLANG] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/links.html#adef-hreflang
> [DC RFC 1] http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2413.txt
> [DC DM WG] http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-datamodel
> [META] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#edef-META
thanks for the references!
gr., Titia
|