Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: Stylesheet RFC -- "description" meta tag in html
/ Adam Di Carlo <email@example.com> was heard to say: | In message <8881-Tue21Dec1999143920firstname.lastname@example.org> you wrote: | >/ "Eve L. Maler" <email@example.com> was heard to say: | >| I would say to use the keywords in the keywordset, which are flat and can | >| be concatenated and separated with commas. | > | >That's not the point of the description though. The description | >is a human readable (apparently short and sweet) summary of the | >content. It's independent of the keywords meta tag. | | I'm not saying they ought to be the same. I'm just saying there ought I didn't think you were, I thought Eve was :-) | to be a way that the author can set something and have the description | metadata be included in the HTML file. I guess the tricky thing is | figuring out if we can use the content of an existing DocBook tag | (i.e., "abstract" on containing element?) I wasn't suggesting Abstract because I wanted to shoehorn it into some existing element, I was suggesting it because I really think the content is semantically an abstract. Perhaps <abstract role="htmlmeta"><simpara>...</simpara></abstract> | or whether we'd have to use a PI or something.... Ack! No! Don't put real document content in a PI. That just strikes me as evil. Cheers, norm -- Norman Walsh <firstname.lastname@example.org> | If you understand: things are as http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | they are. If you do not Member, DocBook Editorial Board | understand: things are as they are.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC