|
|
Hi
On Mon 14-Jan-2002 at 09:50:45 +0000, Andy Powell wrote:
>
> The major issues now are
>
> 1) case of element names
> 'title' vs. 'Title'
> 2) namespace 'prefixes' and separator punctuation
> 'DC.title' vs. 'dc.title' vs. 'dc:title'
> 3) naming of element refinements
> 'dc:title.alternative' vs. 'dcterms:alternative'
>
> My personal preference would be to write a spec that allowed all these
> forms but recommended encodings of the form
>
> <meta name="dc:title" content="...">
> <meta name="dcterms:alternative" content="...">
This makes sense to me -- trying to use the same syntax where ever
possible.
Am I correct in understanding that these are the different XML
representations that the DCMI is going to be recommending?
1. Qualified DC in XML/RDF
2. Unqualified DC in XML
3. Qualified DC in XML
4. Unqualified DC in XHTML
5. Qualified DC in XHTML
Would is be possible / sensible to make this list shorter?
Since XHTML metadata is XML metadata would anything be lost if this list was
reduced to:
1. Qualified DC in XML/RDF
2. Unqualified DC in XHTML
3. Qualified DC in XHTML
Just a thought, feel free to shoot me down in flames :-)
Chris
--
Chris Croome <[log in to unmask]>
web design http://www.webarchitects.co.uk/
web content management http://mkdoc.com/
everything else http://chris.croome.net/
|
|
|
|