Dave Beckett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Lee> Actually there is a way of looking at this as not being a
> Lee> kludge, and I still favour it. One problem is if you have a
> Lee> scheme whose character set can't go in an SGML name -- no SGML
> Lee> qoting is possible in the NAME part, although one could adopt a
> Lee> convention, like %dd except that % isn't allowed.
>
> If we really went down this road (but see later) the only characters
> allowed in a META NAME (I think) from the SGML header for the
> HTML 3.2 DTD are: A-Z a-z 0-9, - and .
Yes. One would have to be reserved for marking that the next two
characters were quoted.
> [...] e.g the well known fake example:
> Element Date with value 19970223
> Qualifier name Scheme, qualifier value "ISO.1234(1996)"
> gives:
>
> <META NAME="dc.Date.Scheme.ISO-2E1234-281996-29" CONTENT="19970223">
Or, better, if somewhere (anywhere) you have:
<meta name="dc.scheme.iso.1234.1996"
url="http://www.iso.ch/standards/1234:1996">
you could then use:
<meta name="dc.date.iso.1234.1996" content="19970223">
In practice, you'd probably not care about the date of the ISO standard that
much, and could write:
<meta name="dc.scheme.iso1234"
url="http://www.iso.ch/standards/1234:1996">
and then use
<meta name="dc.date.iso1234" content="19970223">
You could use any symbol you liked where I have used iso1234 as long
as the URL points to a valid profile (the format of which is not yet
defined, of course, but would have to be).
Therefore, the impossibility of encoding accented letters, let along
Kanji ideograms, is not so important.
> Lee> Personally I'd like to use something like
> Lee> NAME="dc.publisher.name/BCIP-1996"
> Lee> where BCIP-1996 is the naming authority responsible for the field/scheme
> Lee> called "name".
>
> We cannot use '/' in NAME (I think) as I said above.
No, that's why I said I'd like to use it but can't. I should
have been clearer, sorry.
[...]
> Now the problem with this is that what happens when I don't want to
> have a scheme, or scheme is unknown? In that case do I have to leave
> a gap? ie. does
> dc.publisher.scheme.scheme-value.<MORE>
> become:
> dc.publisher...<MORE>
No. If you don't have a scheme, leave it out:
dc.publisher
> In fact, having any requirement on qualifiers is going to fail.
I agree. It's necessary to allow unqualified fields for unqualified
authors :-) as well as tosimplify interoperability where less precision
is required.
Lee
