This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: 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.
| 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.
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.