Re: MCF's new implementation (via XML)

At 9:47 AM -0400 6/16/97, Benjamin Franz wrote:
>It *does* matter. Even as simple a META data schema as the one developed
>by Sandia National Labs has been badly corrupted in practice. The ORIGINAL
>specification calls for FOUR META elements:
>
><meta name="description" content="">
><meta name="keywords" content="Internet, net">
><meta name="resource-type" content="document">
><meta name="distribution" content="global">
>
>In practice this has been stripped down to:
>
><meta name="description" content="">
><meta name="keywords" content="Internet, net">
>
>*Because users didn't understand the rest*

I don't think this is true.  I think this is because a) Most HTML
specification talks only about those two listed; people first learning the
META tag generally are only given these two as options (check most beginner
documentation).  Secondly, most authors, myself included, see that other
two types as unnecessary.  The "resource-type" listing, if it really is as
simplified as "document", seems silly.  *All* of my HTML pages are going to
be documents; I haven't yet figured out how to add Meta-data to a zucchini
or tugboat, let alone shove it on the Net.  And the distribution tag,
again, seems to be very basic.  This corruption occured through a
combination of misinformation *not* because of misunderstanding.

I guarantee it.  If uses are led to understand the importance of meta-data,
and are given simple, understandable categories like:
NAME="Description"
NAME="Keywords"
NAME="Author"
NAME="Lang"
etc., then they will use it.

--------------------------------------------------------
[                    Jordan Reiter                     ]
[            mailto:jreiter@mail.slc.edu               ]
[ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ]
[  The universe got you involved."  --Hal Lipset, P.I. ]
--------------------------------------------------------

Received on Friday, 20 June 1997 11:22:17 UTC