W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2007

Re: Editorial: Content model for <head>

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 19:31:55 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0710050231l700a71efl998f84ef6f03988a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Philip TAYLOR" <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>
Cc: "Jirka Kosek" <jirka@kosek.cz>, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>

I like the wording, and examples are very useful to illustrate the point.
<head>
  <meta charset="UTF-8">
  <title>Example HEAD contents</title>
  <base href="http://www.example.com">
  <!-- the order of other link and meta elements is unimportant -->
</head>

It might also be nice to explain why this order is recommended:
1. identify the language of the document
2. provide the title of the document
3. define the base for all hyperlinks (optional)

I kind of like this approach as it is a little more flexible. For
example, specifying the charset in the xml prolog matches the above
steps, but doesn't require the meta tag.

I still like the text edits though, nice work Henri and Philip :)


On 10/5/07, Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Jirka Kosek wrote:
>
> >>     Zero or one meta element(s) with a charset attribute,
> >>     followed by zero or one base element(s),
> >>     followed, in any order, by one title element
> >>     and zero or more other metadata elements such
> >>     as link, meta, style, and script.
> >
> > Don't you think that having small schema fragment with content model
> > here will be more readable and easier to understand?
>
> I don't know !  I sent an example of prose on which others
> can comment; why not do the same with an example of
> a small schema fragment with content model that carries
> the same semantics ?
>
> Philip TAYLOR
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 09:39:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:08 GMT