Re: Discussion on ISSUE-79: meta-keywords

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