- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 03:37:36 -0400
- To: weibel@oclc.org (Stu Weibel)
- Cc: www-disw@w3.org
In message <199606051612.MAA02502@ws02-00.rsch.oclc.org>, Stu Weibel writes: >The draft report for embedding metadata in HTML can be viewed at: > > http://www.oclc.org:5046/~weibel/html-meta.html Cool. The only thing that bothers me about this proposal is the hack where we glued the schema name to the link relationship with a dot: <link rel=schema.foo href="..."> I'd much prefer to separate the foo into another attribute. We discussed TITLE in the meeting: <link rel=schema title="foo" href="..."> but that was too cheezy. I had a thought while I was brushing my teeth or something the other day to use name: <link rel=schema name=foo href="..."> but I just checked the HTML 2.0 DTD, and it's not there. What _is_ in the HTML 2.0 DTD is URN: <link rel=schema URN=foo href="..."> Only slightly less cheezy than title=foo. I dunno... I gues what we've got is OK. But HTML will soon have an ID attribute on all elements. Then we could write: <link rel=schema id=foo href="..."> which would be my favorite. Another suggestion: once we've hammered out any remaining technical ideas, beef up the spec by adding some non-trivial examples in an appendix: use the IEEE software assets stuff. Do more than one schema in one document. Describe something non-textual, like an image. Sort of "show off" all the things that can be done with this simple convention. Dan p.s. editorial nit: folks might be confused by the spaces in the example markup in the spec: < meta name=xxx content=yyy > It should read: <meta name=xxx content=yyy>
Received on Friday, 7 June 1996 03:37:39 UTC