W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > October 2001

Re: HTML friendly links to metainformation

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:30:43 +0100 (BST)
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20011020190505.O369-100000@fenris.webthing.com>

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Al Gilman wrote:

> Note that HTML WG are struggling with what they feel are needs that are not
> met by X-Link.

Are you on HTML-WG?

> We need to learn what those unmet needs are.  But at least in the present
> case, the structure that seems to be friendliest both to HTML tradition and
> to X-Link decisions is to use a construction something like:

Unmet needs?  Yes indeed.

We installed Site Valet for a company whose intranet standards required
certain metadata to be visible within every page - so it had to go in
the <BODY>.  We incorporated a custom DTD to enforce the metadata,
and wrapped the whole thing in a <div class="metadata"> which was CSS'd
to appear as a footer.

> <div> <!-- or any other container -->
> <meta keywords="accessibility, report">
> <meta scheme="EARL 1.3.7">
> <link role="meta" href="URI-reference_returning_EARL_doc"
> type="cturi:text/rdf;version=1.2">
> </div>

Ugh!  If anything is going to break back-compatibility, trying to
reuse HEAD elements in a BODY must be a prime candidate.

No, if a document is going to point to its own EARL report, then a
LINK element (or META as second choice) in the HEAD is the right
mechanism for it.

> Of course, HTML WG are saying that XHTML 2.0 doesn't have to be
> legacy-safe,

Erm ..... no comment.

Or on second thoughts: yes, here's one printable comment.  It would
be entirely wrong for them to introduce constructs that break back-
compatibility gratuitously.  If they do break it, they should be
prepared to demonstrate both a genuine need and a genuine lack of
any back-compatible alternative.

-- 
Nick Kew

Site Valet - the essential service for anyone with a website.
<URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
Received on Saturday, 20 October 2001 14:31:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:39 GMT