By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,827 Members | 2,195 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,827 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Dublin Core Metadata: buzzword validator not sure if this page uses it

P: n/a

(I assume this is the most appropriate group of this; pointers to
anywhere more appropriate would be welcome)

The Buzzword validator:

http://validator.buzzword.org.uk/

says of this page:

http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/diary/index.htm
90% (fail)

Metadata probably uses Dublin Core. See RFC 2731 for details of
why we weren't sure.

I've looked at the at RFC, and can't see anything wrong with my page -
what am I missing?

The validator finds no DC metadata on:

http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/new.htm/index.htm

which I believe it should do.

--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
Jul 15 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
10 Replies


P: n/a
In message <+$**************@pigsonthewing.org.uk>, Andy Mabbett
<us**********@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrites
>The validator finds no DC metadata on:

http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/new.htm/index.htm
Ack:

http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/new.htm
Sorry.
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
Jul 15 '06 #2

P: n/a
On 2006-07-15, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
(I assume this is the most appropriate group of this; pointers to
anywhere more appropriate would be welcome)

The Buzzword validator:

http://validator.buzzword.org.uk/
I wouldn't pay much attention to a site that says of my home page:

Podcast (optional)
Podcasts are groovy and everything.

RSS Feed (recommended)
Every decent Web 2.0 page includes at least one RSS feed.

Or that says:

You are using XHTML 1.0. You could be using XHTML 1.1 for extra points!

...when the first line on the page says:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

I suppose that's what we should expect, as the site's name suggests
that it interested in fashion, not style.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
===== My code in this post, if any, assumes the POSIX locale
===== and is released under the GNU General Public Licence
Jul 16 '06 #3

P: n/a
In article <3b************@xword.teksavvy.com>, Chris F.A. Johnson
<cf********@gmail.comwrites
>I wouldn't pay much attention to a site that says of my home page:
I wouldn't pay much attention to a site that says of *any* page...

If you don't use CSS then your site will either be ugly or kludgy.
Neither are appropriate on Web 2.0.

What a stupid comment!! Sure, CSS is the way to go, but I can point you
to loads of sites that are neither ugly or kludgy that don't use CSS.
Beauty is not achieved by CSS, it's achieved by skill in design,
whatever the technology you use. It's possible to make beautiful sites
using table-based layout and <fonttags - I wouldn't do it, nor would I
recommend it, but it can be done.

Also, it says "Every decent Web 2.0 page includes at least one RSS feed"
which another load of old crock. Sure RSS is very useful for sites that
are appropriate, but to suggest that a site *must* use RSS to be decent
is pathetic.

All in all, this looks like a (bad) joke site, or one written by a
clueless geek who thinks that using the latest technology, even when
inappropriate is all it takes to produce the "new web." If there is such
a thing as the "new web" then it requires the same solid basis as the
"old" one, ie usability, accessibility, clean design, good content, etc.
None of these are specifically related to any of the buzzwords he
mentions.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jul 17 '06 #4

P: n/a
Andy Mabbett wrote:
The validator finds no DC metadata on:
http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/new.htm/index.htm
which I believe it should do.
It wants:
<head profile="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2731.txt">

Why?

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...tml#meta-data:

| In general, specifying meta data involves two steps:
|
| 1. Declaring a property and a value for that property. This
| may be done in two ways:
| 1. From within a document, via the META element.
| 2. From outside a document, by linking to meta data
| via the LINK element (see the section on link types).
|
| 2. Referring to a profile where the property and its legal
| values are defined. To designate a profile, use the profile
| attribute of the HEAD element.

That is, you've used Dublin Core stuff, but not said that you're using
Dublin Core stuff.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Jul 19 '06 #5

P: n/a
Alan Silver wrote:
What a stupid comment!! Sure, CSS is the way to go, but I can point you
to loads of sites that are neither ugly or kludgy that don't use CSS.
Beauty is not achieved by CSS, it's achieved by skill in design,
whatever the technology you use.
True, beauty can be achieved without CSS -- but then your site is kludgy.

There are four paths you may choose:

* no CSS, no <font> =ugly
* <font> =kludgy and perhaps ugly
* CSS =perhaps ugly
* <fontand CSS =kludgy and perhaps ugly

Thus the only way to avoid both kludginess and ugliness is to use CSS.
Using CSS doesn't guarantee that you'll avoid either, but it allows you to.

(I'm using <fonthere to represent all presentational HTML.)
It's possible to make beautiful sites using table-based layout and
<fonttags - I wouldn't do it, nor would I recommend it, but it can be
done.
Precisely -- you wouldn't recommend it because it's a kludge.
Also, it says "Every decent Web 2.0 page includes at least one RSS feed"
which another load of old crock. Sure RSS is very useful for sites that
are appropriate, but to suggest that a site *must* use RSS to be decent
is pathetic.
I don't suggest a "site" must use RSS. I suggest a "decent Web 2.0 site"
must.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2#Technology_overview:

| A Web 2.0 website typically features a number of the
| following techniques:
|
| * Unobtrusive Rich Internet Application techniques (such
| as Ajax)
| * CSS
| * Semantically valid XHTML markup and/or the use of
| Microformats
| * Syndication and aggregation of data in RSS/Atom
| * Clean and meaningful URLs
| * Weblog publishing
| * Mashups
| * REST or XML Webservice APIs

Points 5-7 of that list are difficult to test for programatically.

Besides which, if you look at the validation results, you'll see that a
site can pass the validation without having an RSS feed. In fact, there
are only three things (so far) that will fail a page:

* non-use of CSS
* Transitional doctype
* triggering Quirks Mode
All in all, this looks like a (bad) joke site, or one written by a
clueless geek who thinks that using the latest technology, even when
inappropriate is all it takes to produce the "new web."
It's both (except the "clueless" part). From the front page:

| Please note that this site is not a validator in the formal,
| SGML sense of the word. We hope this tool provides a kooky,
| but useful service to help your site reach its full Web 2.0
| glory. If you want formal (X)HTML validation, try the WDG
| validator.

When it's written, the "About" page will provide more information about
the purpose of the site; but it's still in the early stages of development.

Ultimately, I hope the site will provide three things:

1. A bit of a giggle;

2. A way of testing your site to get ideas about what things
you might be able to improve on: not stuff that you're
doing wrong; but directions that you might want to go in
the future. People might test their site, notice that they
don't have an "Atom feed"; they don't even know what one is;
so they follow the link about Atom, read about it a bit, and
decide whether or not they want to have one; if they do,
they just need to follow a further link through to
atomenabled.org. And;

3. Once I've done a bit more work on it, I plan on releasing
the PHP code. I imagine this could be handy for medium to
large organisations doing QA on their own websites and
intranets. They can disable the fluff modules they don't
care about (e.g. podcasting) and write modules for things
they *do* care about (e.g. ensuring the TM symbol follows
all their trademarks). The framework for writing the
modules is really easy -- the DCMI module that is the subject
of this thread is only 46 lines of PHP. It could be a very
useful and adaptable tool. This will be GPLed of course.

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

Jul 19 '06 #6

P: n/a
In message <sm************@ophelia.g5n.co.uk>, Toby Inkster
<us**********@tobyinkster.co.ukwrites
>The validator finds no DC metadata on:
[http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/new.htm]
>which I believe it should do.

It wants:
<head profile="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2731.txt">
Thank you.

Still not finding any :-(
>Why?

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...tml#meta-data:
[...]
>That is, you've used Dublin Core stuff, but not said that you're using
Dublin Core stuff.
I thought:

<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<link rel="schema.DCTERMS" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">

covered that.
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
Jul 19 '06 #7

P: n/a
In message <CX**************@pigsonthewing.org.uk>, Andy Mabbett
<us**********@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrites
>Still not finding any :-(
And:
http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/diary/

which you previously thought was "90% (fail)", is now, with the profile
attribute, showing as definitely not using DC metadata
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
Jul 19 '06 #8

P: n/a
Andy Mabbett wrote:
And:
http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/diary/

which you previously thought was "90% (fail)", is now, with the profile
attribute, showing as definitely not using DC metadata
Bug - fixed. "schema.DCTERMS" was confusing it.

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

Jul 20 '06 #9

P: n/a
Andy Mabbett wrote:
I thought:
<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<link rel="schema.DCTERMS" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
covered that.
That syntax is defined in RFC 2731. Without using the profile attribute
(which is defined in the HTML recommendation), a user-agent technically
has no way of knowing what those LINK elements are supposed to mean.
(Though it can take a stab in the dark.)

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

Jul 20 '06 #10

P: n/a
In message <sm************@ophelia.g5n.co.uk>, Toby Inkster
<us**********@tobyinkster.co.ukwrites
><head profile="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2731.txt">
P.S.

If that's required, how come it's not used by http://dublincore.org/ ?
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
Jul 27 '06 #11

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.