- From: Olle Jarnefors <ojarnef@nada.kth.se>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:50:30 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: www-html-editor@w3.org
- Cc: ojarnef@nada.kth.se
Editors, Unfortunately I sent some of these comments to the wrong email addresses yesterday, so you might already have seen some of them. Comment OJ-1 ------------ I happened to notice a remaining typo in http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-html40/html40.txt in section > B.1 Notes on helping search engines index your Web site namely > <META name="description" content="Idylic European vacations"> ^^^^^ Should be: Idyllic Comment OJ-2 ------------ Here's small suggestion: The NAME values of META elements and the names of link types now have an unambiguous interpretation when the HEAD attribute PROFILE indicates a URL to a suitable profile for metadata. Why not make a similar disambiguation of CLASS names by means of a CLASSPROFILE element in the HEAD? Why a HEAD element rather than a HEAD ot HTML attribute? Because one may very likely want to use CLASS names from more than one publicly defined profile in the same document. How avoid possible name collisions between these profiles? By providing two attributes in the CLASSPROFILE element: + HREF, which points at a description of the class profile; + PREFIX, which defines a prefix used locally in this document in all CLASS names taken from this class profile. Comment OJ-3 ------------ For LINK elements, both the TYPE and the CHARSET of the target resource can be specified, for A elements only the CHARSET. Why this difference? Shouldn't TYPE be added to A? Comment OJ-4 ------------ Typos: Section "13.2.1 Syntax of anchor names" includes six occurrences of '>/A>'. Comment OJ-5 ------------ Another thought: Does SGML exclude that all substrings of a comment having the form of character entity references, are interpreted as such? This would be very useful, I think, making it trivial to include such things as sequences of hyphens or indeed whole comments in the content of a comment. This is also how e.g. Netscape and GNU-Emacs already treat entity reference-like ingredients of comments. Irrespective of whether this is a good suggestion or not, I think that the HTML 4.0 spec should say _something_ about the interpretation of entity references in comments. Best regards, /Olle
Received on Friday, 3 October 1997 17:50:50 UTC