Meta data

[Fast Eddie]

What's the benefit to coding <meta name="author"...> and such? Thanks.

[David Dorward]

Fast Eddie wrote:

What's the benefit to coding <meta name="author"...> and such?

Some tools can recognise it. You can write your own tools that recognise it.
Humans can read it.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Jukka K. Korpela]

"Fast Eddie" <ne*******@newsserver.com> wrote:

What's the benefit to coding <meta name="author"...> and such?

None. Well, it might be regarded as a small improvement over specifying
the author in a comment only.

Most <meta> tags are completely useless, but many of them are potentially
dangerous: they give wrong information, and if some software some day
starts actually using <meta> information, who knows what happens?

Then there are some exceptions, most notably <meta http-equiv=
"Content-Type" ...>, which can be useful _if_ it contains adequate
information.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Eric Biller]

Fast Eddie wrote:

What's the benefit to coding <meta name="author"...> and such?

Some search-engine robots used them in the past to get information about the
website. I don't think it's used today. IMO it belongs to a website as the
alt-attribute does. But that's my personal opinion.

Greetz Eric Biller

[Tim]

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 00:25:09 -0400,
"Fast Eddie" <ne*******@newsserver.com> posted:

What's the benefit to coding <meta name="author"...> and such? Thanks.

I should have thought that'd only be of much use to a team of people
working on a site and they wanted to simply track who's looking after each
page.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[Harlan Messinger]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

"Fast Eddie" <ne*******@newsserver.com> wrote:

What's the benefit to coding <meta name="author"...> and such?

None. Well, it might be regarded as a small improvement over specifying
the author in a comment only.

Most <meta> tags are completely useless, but many of them are potentially
dangerous: they give wrong information,

Much like the content of many web pages, now? ;-)
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

[Brian]

Eric Biller wrote:

Fast Eddie wrote:

What's the benefit to coding <meta name="author"...> and such?

IMO it belongs to a website as the alt-attribute does.

I couldn't quite parse that sentence. Could you rephrase it?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Fast Eddie]

>> From: Fast Eddie

What's the benefit to coding <meta name="author"...> and such?

From: Jukka K. Korpela

None. Well, it might be regarded as a small improvement over
specifying the author in a comment only.

Most <meta> tags are completely useless, but many of them are
potentially dangerous: they give wrong information, and if some
software some day starts actually using <meta> information, who
knows what happens?

Then there are some exceptions, most notably <meta http-equiv=
"Content-Type" ...>, which can be useful _if_ it contains adequate
information.

Righto. I use Content-Type to indicate MIME type and character set.
It doesn't look as if I'll lose anything by omitting the more, uh,
documentary meta tags. Thanks for the info.

[Toby Inkster]

Fast Eddie wrote:

What's the benefit to coding <meta name="author"...> and such? Thanks.

Depends on which tools you're using.

* A content-management system used by a group of people could use such
metadata to only allow documents to be edited by the original author.

* The management team within an organisation could mandate the use of it
to assist in tracking down the authors of documents in the future.

I'm sure you can think of other possible uses.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

[Fast Eddie]

>> From: Fast Eddie

What's the benefit to coding <meta name="author"...> and such?
Thanks.

From: Toby Inkster

Depends on which tools you're using.

* A content-management system used by a group of people could use
such metadata to only allow documents to be edited by the original
author.

* The management team within an organisation could mandate the use
of it to assist in tracking down the authors of documents in the
future.

I'm sure you can think of other possible uses.

I can think of reasons that people might want to know the author of a
page. Comments would work equally well for that purpose, though, and
would allow for more flexibility in formatting.

The bottom line, so far as I can see, is that there's no reason for me
to use such meta tags in my personal site. I guess that was my
original question, although I worded it in a more general way.
Thanks.

[L�ʻie Techie]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:25:09 -0400, Fast Eddie wrote:

What's the benefit to coding <meta name="author"...> and such? Thanks.

I suggest using <link> tags when appropriate, as these can be used by some
existent browsers (Mozilla and Opera come to mind).

Some <meta name=""> tags are still used by search engines, such as
<meta name="description">
Search engines also use to use the meta keywords until authors started
spamming.

HTH,
La'ie Techie

[Daniel R. Tobias]

L??ie Techie <laie@win_remove_get_nospam_solutions.com> wrote in message news:<1097130884.cUk3ysqkFUUbtQFJv2WxvA@teranews>. ..

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:25:09 -0400, Fast Eddie wrote:

What's the benefit to coding <meta name="author"...> and such? Thanks.

I suggest using <link> tags when appropriate, as these can be used by some
existent browsers (Mozilla and Opera come to mind).

Some discussion of meta and link tags, and other things in the head
section of an HTML document, is in my site:
http://webtips.dan.info/titles.html

--
Dan

[Eric Biller]

Brian wrote:

IMO it belongs to a website as the alt-attribute does.

I couldn't quite parse that sentence. Could you rephrase it?

In my opinion:
Like the alt-atribute in img-tags, meta-tags belong to a website.
Just my personal opinion.

Greets Eric

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Eric Biller <Bi******@gmx.net> wrote:

Like the alt-atribute in img-tags, meta-tags belong to a website.
Still doesn't make much sense. The alt attribute is formally obligatory,
has defined semantics, and has lots of essential impact. The meta tags
are formally optional, with very vague or completely undefined semantics,
and very limited usefulness, as well as several known pitfalls.

So why would you compare the two? Would you also say "like the title
element in head part, acronym tags belong to a website"?

You haven't given any _arguments_, unless we count the obscure comparison
that lacks any point, so your personal opinion, as such, cannot be of
great importance on this global forum.
Just my personal opinion.

And a wrong one.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Neal]

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:06:39 +0200, Eric Biller <Bi******@gmx.net> wrote:

Brian wrote:

IMO it belongs to a website as the alt-attribute does.

I couldn't quite parse that sentence. Could you rephrase it?

In my opinion:
Like the alt-atribute in img-tags, meta-tags belong to a website.
Just my personal opinion.

More understandable now, but still makes no sense. Clearly, all the markup
on a page "belongs" to the website.

My opinion is you've based this on an incomplete knowledge of the purpose
of the alt attribute on img. Why do you feel the above is true?

[Eric Biller]

Sorry guys,
I think we're completely talking on cross-purposes.
I know that the alt-attribute is obligatory and the meta-tags are optional.
Perhaps my comparison isn't quite perfect, but I did not think that someone
gives it so much observation.
I just wanted to say:
In my personal style of coding html, some meta-tags are obligatory for me
(just for me). And for me (just for me) they're as obligatory as
alt-attributes in img-tags, which are obligatory in general.

Just wanted to express my opinion about meta-tags. It was not my purpose to
start a discussion, if a meta tag has to be there or not.
And I did not want to give arguments for or against using these tags.
I donot bother, if you use meta-tags or not. It is up to the coder.

Greets
Eric

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Eric Biller <Bi******@gmx.net> wrote:

Perhaps my comparison isn't quite perfect,
A very mild way of saying that it entirely rubbish nonsense.
but I did not
think that someone gives it so much observation.
Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!
I just wanted to say:
In my personal style of coding html, some meta-tags are obligatory
for me (just for me).
Should we care? Honestly, should we care, especially if you don't want to
hear how distorted the idea is?
Just wanted to express my opinion about meta-tags.
We are not interested in opinions, or even amused by them, especially
when presented in a manner that excludes any sensible discussion on them.
It was not my purpose to start a discussion,

This is a discussion group. If this doesn't suit you, you have the
liberty of not participating.

It is generally a good idea to just read a group instead of posting to
it, until you have a contribution to make to the discussions.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Harlan Messinger]

"Eric Biller" <Bi******@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:2s*************@uni-berlin.de...

Brian wrote:

IMO it belongs to a website as the alt-attribute does.

I couldn't quite parse that sentence. Could you rephrase it?

In my opinion:
Like the alt-atribute in img-tags, meta-tags belong to a website.
Just my personal opinion.

It might be your opinion they "belong to a website" but it's still not
obvious to most English speakers what you mean. "Belong to someone" =
"jemandem gehören"; "belong to something" = "gehören zu etwas".

You probably meant "belong on" = "darein sich finden sollt". And yes, alt
attributes belong on a web site for the benefit of your audience, and, more
importantly, because they are *required*. META tags are not required, and
they (other than possibly DESCRIPTION and KEYWORDS) ordinarily don't benefit
the audience in any way. If they don't serve a purpose, there's no reason to
have them.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

Their three main weapons were pop-up windows, frames and
meta-refresh?

I think I'll go for the comfy chair.

[Brian]

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

Our chief weapon is tags and attributes. Attributes and tags are our two
greatest weapons. And content. Our three greatest weapons are tags,
attributes, and content. And an almost fanatical devotion to the W3C.
Amongst our weaponry...

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Andy Dingley]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 18:53:42 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

Their three main weapons were pop-up windows, frames and
meta-refresh?

And unswerving allegiance to the W3C !
Our _four_ weapons are pop-up windows, frames,
meta-refresh and unswerving allegiance to the W3C !

[Eric Biller]

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

We are not interested in opinions, or even amused by them, This is a discussion group. If this doesn't suit you, you have the
liberty of not participating.
How does this fit? Discussion without presenting opinions? Explain!

It is generally a good idea to just read a group instead of posting to
it, until you have a contribution to make to the discussions.

My former group concerning HTML got a new descritption: use c.i.w.a.h
instead.
I will ignore that und participate in my original group, until it is closed.
They take care of opinions, you know.

Cya

[Neal]

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 09:02:08 +0200, Eric Biller <Bi******@gmx.net> wrote:

I will ignore that und participate in my original group, until it is
closed.
They take care of opinions, you know.

Hey, opinions are great. We also want to understand the basis for the
opinion. That's all we're asking.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Eric Biller <Bi******@gmx.net> wrote:

I will ignore that und participate in my original group, until it is
closed. They take care of opinions, you know.

Fine. Have a good time there. I'm sure your move will raise the average
level of discussion in both groups.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html