Re: Location marker

Andrew Daviel (
Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:58:35 -0700 (PDT)

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andrew Daviel <>
To: Rob <>
cc: Jeni Tennison <jft@Psychology.Nottingham.AC.UK>,
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Location marker

On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Rob wrote:

> Jeni Tennison <jft@Psychology.Nottingham.AC.UK> wrote:
> > Within documents, there's nothing stopping anyone putting in META elements
> > within an HTML page to encode physical location, and for robots to pull out
> > and utilise that information for searches, e.g.
> > 
> > <META NAME="location" CONTENT="Nottingham, UK">
> > <META NAME="location" CONTENT="San Francisco, California, USA">
> > <META NAME="location" CONTENT="Spain">
> Is <meta name="location" ...> standard or semi-standard, though? How 
> to indicate it's a geographic location and not a URL or URI? (And 
> what of buggy prowsers that confuse this with
>   <meta http-equiv="Location" content="">
> ???
> Location could also be put in <meta name="keywords"...> or <meta 
> name="description" ...> or perhaps using a meta-scheme like Dublin 
> Core to indicate geographic relevance.
> Rob

MapleSquare ( uses name="Location"
in a defined format (CountryCode, ProvinceAbbreviation, City)
for a Canadian directory service (hence "CA, BC, Vancouver").

The equivalent Dublin Core element is 

We're just arguing about it (whether to put complete postal address,
whether people think Birmingham is in the US or the UK, etc.)

Dublin Core elements are generally repeatable. I would interpret
 <META NAME="DC.coverage.placeName" CONTENT="Chicago, USA">
 <META NAME="DC.coverage.placeName" CONTENT="Pittsburg, USA">
to indicate that the resource was about both Chicago and about Pittsburg.

Andrew Daviel
TRIUMF & Vancouver Webpages - META tag dictionary