W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Chatter around titles

From: Shane P. McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:09:32 -0500
Message-Id: <C3E3182F-2684-4C84-83D3-EB9292F03405@aptest.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:53 GMT