- From: Andrew Daviel <andrew@andrew.triumf.ca>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
- cc: www-html@w3.org
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Jordan Reiter wrote: > > > >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 ... as a writer of some "beginner documentation", I'm interested in the derivation of the original elements. Are they defined anywhere properly ? I.e. what other elements are suggested/allowed for resource-type and location ? > 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. .. Dublin Core (http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core_elements) defines NAME="DC.description" NAME="DC.creator" (author of text, artist/photog for images etc.) NAME="DC.language" etc., which I intend to promote as soon as we agree on syntax for defining schemes, subtypes etc. (e.g. scheme=LCCSH ,Library of Congress Subject Headings). Andrew Daviel
Received on Friday, 20 June 1997 16:36:22 UTC