|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on 03/02/06 12:25
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> I'm not an expert in DCMI terminology, but I interpreted that as a
> DCMI recommendation. Care to show me where I went wrong?
DCMI have a weirder attitude than W3C in terms of what they "recommend"
and how rigorous conformance to these recommendations is. When pushed,
they retrench on how much they claim to define, making DC1.0 qualifiers
less useful for interoperability than needed and DC 1.1 awkward indeed.
Use of DC, and use of DC within HTML, is certainly outside their remit.
It's simply not theirs to define. So follow their (good) advice on how
to do it, follow their equally good principles on how to achieve
interoperability, particularly the 1.0 "dumbing down" principle. Don't
however use the DC guidance as an absolute standard on "conformance"
when judging others' implementations. Any embedding of DC into HTML
that doesn't demonstrably break either of the separate standards is
perfectly "valid", even if it's at odds with this one specific
suggestion.
<h1 class="dc-title" >Foo</h1>
<h2 class="dc-subject" >Bar bat</h2>
is still a perfectly valid embedding of DC/HTML. In some contexts, it
might even be the best of all possible ones.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|