- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 21:51:09 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12777
Chris <jaboc2kl@googlemail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jaboc2kl@googlemail.com
--- Comment #3 from Chris <jaboc2kl@googlemail.com> 2011-05-25 21:51:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> a) I don't see how this is different from "keywords".
>
> b) The spec does not need to define all meta keywords; there's an extension
> point for that. Use it.
a >> True there may be no need to extend the spec if we could get the usage of
the 'keywords' meta tag re-appropriated for this 'context' purpose.
The problem with the keywords meta is that it's all but useless and is actively
ignored my most major search engines. This means that it is now effectively a
dead part of the HTML spec and what's the point of that?
b >> Also, I'm not asking the spec to define white-lists or black-lists of
acceptable words. That is something for the search engines and web communities
to come up with themselves. The point is merely to support a method for
describing the context of a document.
Really this would perhaps be more like having blog style 'tags' and
'categories', but for all websites not just blogs. Doesn't Technorati use blogs
tags etc. to help users find what they're looking for? So why can't all
websites benefit from this?
I believe that if we could get search engines to support it this could empower
web users and allow for more powerful searches and more accurate search
results.
Publishers would have more power to get their content in-front of the right
users. Users would have more power to find the right content. I don't see how
this could be a bad idea?!
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 21:51:12 UTC