Re: New requirement - Simplifying Meta Data Profile

On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 16:19 -0400, Denis Boudreau (WebConforme) wrote:
> Hi again,
> On 14-Mar-07, at 02:09 AM, sajid saiyed wrote:
> > I would like to start this new thread which is about new feature  
> > requirement (i think). If you look at the current Meta data profiles:
> >
> > <META name="author" content="John Doe">
> > <META name="copyright" content="&copy; 1997 Acme Corp.">
> > <META name="keywords" content="corporate,guidelines,cataloging">
> > <META name="date" content="1994-11-06T08:49:37+00:00">
> > I feel this can be simplified to make code writing more pleasurable:
> > <META author="John Doe" copyright="&copy; 1997 Acme Corp."  
> > keywords="corporate,guidelines,cataloging" date="1994-11-06T08:49:37 
> > +00:00"> Any thoughts on this?
> I would be all up for that. Less clutter and more precise tagging, imo.
> Was there a reason in the first place as to go for different entries  
> with the meta element, instead of thinking in terms of attribute for  
> a single meta element? The fear of unreasonnably long values maybe?
> Dan, is this the kind of suggestions you had in mind for this list?

Sorry for the delay in  responding...

Yes, this is roughly what I had in mind.

I'm particularly interested in having the test documents available
as attachments so that we can point various tools at them. Anybody
who wants to take this idea further should finish the example document
and attach it.

Also, I don't see a statement of a requirement in your message,
in the sense of a "documented need of what a particular product
or service should be or do"
  (see also some more local experience in )

I find it particularly useful to distinguish verifiable
requirements from goals etc.

"make code writing more pleasurable" looks like a goal, though
it seems too abstract to be worth trying to document as a goal
of this group.

The subject you chose suggests an issue more than a requirement,
to me; I might call it "complexity of the meta data profile".

At this brainstorming stage, all ideas are welcome.

But eventually we'll be making decisions as a group about
which ideas to pursue. Looking ahead just a bit, consider...

The cost of changing HTML is very, very high. Writing specs
is a tiny part of it. There's also testing and coding. But
even those are mostly one-time efforts. The biggest cost
I see is training. Consider the cost of updating all the
books and course materials on HTML. I gather it takes
3 times as long to change a habit as to make one, and there
are already established habits and tools around the
<meta> element.

Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 16:00:46 UTC