A user account is required in order to edit this wiki, but we've had to disable public user registrations due to spam.

To request an account, ask an autoconfirmed user on Chat (such as one of these permanent autoconfirmed members).

Generic Metadata Mechanisms

From WHATWG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There have been some requests for introducing generic metadata mechanisms into HTML5.

To help determine what we would need to add, and whether it is worth adding anything, we have to come to an understanding of what the goals and requirements are of such a proposal.

Please document arguments with links to supporting research or links to other wiki pages detailing the anecdotal evidence for or against particular aspects of the goals and requirements.

Goals

What is the problem we are trying to solve?

A machine-readable and standardized way to apply semantic properties (metadata) to DOM elements in HTML5 and probably XHTML. These properties are capable of being disambiguated between multiple definitions of the property name. We should be able to find or define an "authoritive" meaning for an abstract concept like "title" (eg. book title, job title, person's title, land deed, etc...). The metadata could be read by UA's and other tools to perform actions that would not be possible without "knowing" what type of thing, quantity, unit or quality an element represents.

Who faces this problem?

Currently a few groups. In the future metadata may become necessary for the average "web consumer" (human or machine) to sort actual information from presentation and structural cruft. In other words, a useful tool for determining the meaning, terms of use, quality and/or authority of a piece of data inside (X)HTML.

Requirements: If we assume that we are going to address this need, what do we need to provide?

Please list each requirement in its own subsection so that arguments pro and con and links to supporting research can be included.

The DOM has to be consistent between HTML and XHTML representations

  • Pro: If it isn't, then migrating between the two becomes complicated.

The syntax has to be something that Web authors can easily deploy

  • Pro: If authors can't deploy this, then it won't get critical mass and won't matter
  • Con: Tools will be used to deploy this. It'll mostly be used by big sites like Facebook. So individual authors don't matter.

It has to have both a way to abstract it from the HTML and a way to include it inline

  • Examples: Javascript and CSS
  • Pro: Inline it may be quicker for non-professional developers to use and adopt.
  • Pro: Abstracted it is more flexible for professional developers, does not clutter the HTML, and gives it more space to develop such as style did once it was abstracted from HTML.
  • Con: More complicated than having either.

Inline it should follow the conventions of CSS and Javascript

  • Javascript example: onclick="doSomething();doSomethingElse();foo();"
  • CSS example: style="width:300px;height:200px;border:1px solid #ccc;font-size:1em;"
  • Pro: The properties are grouped together and in the case of style only uses one attribute name. This keeps the markup cleaner and better organized than creating multiple attributes directly on the elements. Compare with how we added style to elements before CSS.
  • Con: Makes it harder to select individual property/value pairs through CSS or the DOM. (Might required dedicated APIs... Ugh.)

Sustainability

Where possible the proposal should be resistant to temporary or permanent unavailability of an authoritative source (ie, vocabulary provider). This could be acheived, for example, through a P2P or DNS-like mechanism.

  • Pro: Metadata remains usable during temporary outage or overload of an authoritive source of metadata definitions.
  • Pro: Possibly, but not necessarily, more resistant to hostile takeover or shutdown of authority.
  • Con: Probably makes proposal more technically complex and may be difficult, expensive or impossible to solve.
  • Con: Distributing an authoritive source may make it less authoritive.

Reuse

The proposal should allow metadata and authoritive sources to be reused across elements, pages and sites.

  • Pro: Web developers are more likely to use something that does not require repetitively typing the same data.
  • Con: Proposal may be more complex.
  • Con: Reuse may change or dilute the semantics of the metadata.

Multilingual and Multicultural

Not all concepts can be expressed properly in English. A proposal should allow metadata for foreign languages and concepts.

  • Pro: Web developers are more likely to use something in their own language.
  • Pro: More concepts and measures can be expressed.
  • Con: Proposal would be more complex.
  • Con: The author would need to correctly define the region or culture being used.

Related Proposals, Research and Discussions

Retrieved from "https://wiki.whatwg.org/index.php?title=Generic_Metadata_Mechanisms&oldid=3265"