- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:49:58 +0900
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>, public-html@w3.org
Le 28 mars 2007 à 09:34, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit : > Evidence for this principle: > > - Search engines originally gave weight to "meta" keywords, but > have abandoned them because they are so often wrong and dishonest. Untrue. It depends on the context. * Some people are using the meta name keywords AND description in some application domains ON the Web, like Libraries and Museum. A long [list of projects][dc] using dublin core under different forms dc: http://www.dublincore.org/projects/ Another example, you should know better ;) * [SpotLight on Mac OS X][1] Let's take a practical example [The Matrix of W3C Specifications][1] In the Markup: <meta name="Keywords" content="qa, quality assurance, conformance, validity, test suite, qa, quality assurance, conformance, validity, test suite, matrix, qa, conformance, specification, recommendation, standard, test suite, validator, validation" /> <meta name="Description" content="W3C QA - Matrix detailing the QA activity of the different specifications issued by W3C." /> In Spotlight: I have a local copy of all HTML files, I edit on W3C Web site. Let's use the command line to list what has been indexed and then is accessible from the Spotlight GUI. % mdls TheMatrix.html kMDItemComment = "W3C QA - Matrix detailing the QA activity of the different specifications issued by W3C." kMDItemKeywords = ( qa, "quality assurance", conformance, validity, "test suite", qa, "quality assurance", conformance, validity, "test suite", matrix, qa, conformance, specification, recommendation, standard, "test suite", validator, validation) kMDItemKind = "HTML Document" It is *actually* used and it is very practical when searching for information. [1]: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Carbon/Reference/ MetadataAttributesRef/Reference/CommonAttrs.html [2]: http://www.w3.org/QA/TheMatrix.html The problem you are explaining about metadata is about usability and management of information not that much about the language. I think the approach should be to not exclude the two ways of managing metadata. There are metadata that you want visible and some you do not want visible. > 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? Another counter example for "link" usage. :) link to CSS files. It's not a design principles. It's more a content manager, author recommendation in some cases. The design principles should be something around: The language must have the ability to express visible AND hidden metadata, (depending on the requirements of the authors.). For example [RDFa][3] can help authors to express visible metadata Practical example: <p class="cal:Vevent" about="#xtech_conference_talk"> I'm giving <span property="cal:summary"> a talk at the XTech Conference about web widgets </span>, on <span property="cal:dtstart" content="20070508T1000+0200"> May 8th at 10am </span>. </p> [3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-primer/ -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/ *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2007 10:50:46 UTC