/ Adam Di Carlo <> was heard to say:
| In message <> you wrote:
| >/ "Eve L. Maler" <> 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 <> | 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.
