- From: Rob <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:45:37 -0500
- To: Jeni Tennison <jft@Psychology.Nottingham.AC.UK>
- CC: "billy dunn" <bdunn@gulfinfo.com>, www-html@w3.org
Jeni Tennison <jft@Psychology.Nottingham.AC.UK> wrote: > Within documents, there's nothing stopping anyone putting in META elements > within an HTML page to encode physical location, and for robots to pull out > and utilise that information for searches, e.g. > > <META NAME="location" CONTENT="Nottingham, UK"> > <META NAME="location" CONTENT="San Francisco, California, USA"> > <META NAME="location" CONTENT="Spain"> Is <meta name="location" ...> standard or semi-standard, though? How to indicate it's a geographic location and not a URL or URI? (And what of buggy prowsers that confuse this with <meta http-equiv="Location" content="http://www.newurl.net/"> ??? Location could also be put in <meta name="keywords"...> or <meta name="description" ...> or perhaps using a meta-scheme like Dublin Core to indicate geographic relevance. Rob --- Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl (wlkngowl@unix.asb.com) (Se habla PGP.) http://www.wusb.org/mutant/
Received on Saturday, 16 August 1997 20:48:03 UTC