- From: Shane P. McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:09:32 -0500
- To: dorian taylor <dorian.taylor.lists@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-xhtml2@w3.org" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Sure! You would use @content. Shane McCarron On Apr 11, 2009, at 11:30 AM, dorian taylor <dorian.taylor.lists@gmail.com > wrote: > Shane, > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> > wrote: >> Thanks for your comments. >> >> As it turns out, the working group resolved recently to revert the >> content >> model of Meta back to its XHTML 1 form more or less, so there is no >> PCDATA >> nor Text permitted within meta. Also, meta is no longer permitted >> in the >> body. Consequently, we believe this particular item is no longer in >> conflict. > > Thank you for your reply. I agree that it is wise to avoid constructs > that compete for semantics. > > A distinct benefit I recognized of adding a content model to the meta > element was that I could describe, however narrowly, an XMLLiteral > triple without it being part of the body. Suppose, for example, I > wanted to describe a dc:abstract for the document that contained > markup, but for one reason or another I didn't want it to be > susceptible to rendering. Is that construct still available? > > Regards, > > -- > Dorian Taylor > http://doriantaylor.com/
Received on Saturday, 11 April 2009 20:10:59 UTC