- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:34:08 -0700
- To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Mar 27, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Murray Maloney wrote: > > The Design Principle: > > [[ > VisibleMetadata: Metadata is more effective when it is directly > tied to user-visible deta. Invisible metadata is often incorrect, > out of date, or intentionally deceptive. For example, <a> is more > trustworthy as a cross-reference than <link>. User-visible tags are > more trustworthy than <meta> kewords. > ]] > > The first two statements are assertions that are true when they are > true and not when they are not. > Thus, I do not agree with these statements as a premise for a > design principle. > I cannot agree with the example at all. I have used <link> to great > effect and have depended on it. > Also, <meta> has its place. Evidence for this principle: - Search engines originally gave weight to "meta" keywords, but have abandoned them because they are so often wrong and dishonest. - http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm > That's not to say that I don't feel some sympathy for what you are > trying to say here, > it's just that I can't agree with this design principle as written. > > What problem is this trying to solve? It seems as though this is an > attempt to codify > some practice that is currently in vogue. Note that this principle is not an absolute, it says "more effective". So it doesn't mean you can't have things like <link>, but that it's better to combine the user-visible and machine-readable information. Do you disagree that it is at all better? Do you think it's worse? Should I throw the word "prefer" in there somewhere? Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2007 00:34:20 UTC