Re: MCF's new implementation (via XML)

Andrew Daviel (andrew@andrew.triumf.ca)
Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:35:51 -0700 (PDT)


Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andrew Daviel <andrew@andrew.triumf.ca>
To: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: MCF's new implementation (via XML)
In-Reply-To: <l03010d07afd05081df11@[198.77.183.84]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970620132559.3226B-100000@andrew.triumf.ca>

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Jordan Reiter wrote:

> >
> >In practice this has been stripped down to:
> >
> ><meta name="description" content="">
> ><meta name="keywords" content="Internet, net">
> >
> >*Because users didn't understand the rest*
> 
> I don't think this is true.  I think this is because a) Most HTML
> specification talks only about those two listed; people first learning the
> META tag generally are only given these two as options (check most beginner

... as a writer of some "beginner documentation", I'm interested in the
derivation of the original elements. Are they defined anywhere properly ?
I.e. what other elements are suggested/allowed for resource-type 
and location ?

> I guarantee it.  If uses are led to understand the importance of meta-data,
> and are given simple, understandable categories like:
> NAME="Description"
> NAME="Keywords"
> NAME="Author"
> NAME="Lang"
> etc., then they will use it.


 .. Dublin Core (http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core_elements) defines
 NAME="DC.description"
 NAME="DC.creator"       (author of text, artist/photog for images etc.)
 NAME="DC.language"

etc., which I intend to promote as soon as we agree on syntax for 
defining schemes, subtypes etc. (e.g. scheme=LCCSH ,Library of Congress
Subject Headings).

Andrew Daviel