- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:04:35 +0100
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 24.02.2010 17:13, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > ... >> This issue is not about meta/@name values in general, but the value >> "keywords" specifically. How is that relevant to profile extensions >> and/or DC-HTML? > > OK. I misunderstood that aspect of your proposal. I guess I perceived > "keywords" as a synonymous with "value of the meta@name attribute. And, > also, in HTML4 then any value is valid, but only those values that are > supported by an actual profile specification, carries any meaning. Yes, the fact that HTML5 makes unregistered values invalid is a problem that probably should be tracked separately (see related issue <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/102>). I'm not convinced that insisting on what HTML4 said is constructive though. It's pretty clear that there is a de facto global namespace of name values, and HTML5 needs to say something about it. > But aren't there more meta@name values mentioned in HTML4 that ought to > be formally valid in HTML5? I found 3 values that are not present in > HTML5, but which HTML4 mentions: > > name="ROBOTS" content="ALL, INDEX, NOFOLLOW, NOINDEX" > (section B.4.1 Search robots) > name="copyright" (section 7.4.4 Meta data > "hypothetical profile … for document indexing") > name="date" (section 7.4.4 Meta data) > "hypothetical profile … for document indexing") > > All of which are mentioned in relationship to search engines and > indexing. I believe all of these are in use? "Robots" is mentioned as "proposed" -- not "approved" -- in <http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/MetaExtensions>. Note the current requirements listed over there: "For the "Status" section to be changed to "Accepted", the proposed keyword must be defined by a W3C specification in the Candidate Recommendation or Recommendation state. If it fails to go through this process, it is "Unendorsed"." So I would consider this as proof that the registry doesn't really work, or that the registration requirements are too high (is anybody going to write a W3C Rec defining the "robots"?) -- again, this is related to <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/102>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 14:05:14 UTC