Talk:MetaExtensions

"description" meta name

I think the description name should be added to the HTML 5 specifications. Yes, search engines have made the keywords name obsolete. However search engines are not that good. It is still only the document author that can provide a reliable, short description of the documents contents. I think there should be constrains on how long, what it contains, and the structure of the description. Short sentences, and plain English descriptions would be the best.

It looks like "description" is in the latest specification. Rfc2549 01:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keywords still work. Descriptions are a good idea. However, HTML5 should not constrain search engines by specifying short sentences or any particular structure. HTML5 and this MetaExtensions Wiki should be permissive, especially for websites that depend on specialized or foreign search engines that may have other rank-driving preferences for meta tags. Rather, page authors should consider short sentences and the plain language you suggest because when they appear in search results they attract visitors. However, a site meant for physicians might have a different idea on what language is plain for their readers, so HTML can't usefully define that. Advice on good drafting is the province of search engines and various websites that report or advise. Nick 08:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

keywords and description should not be unendorsed, should they?

Why are keywords and description unendorsed? Yahoo and Google do use them for searches, if not as much as when they began offering search services. And there are other search engines around the world, which might well support both of these. The unendorsing of cache is explained; what are the explanations for the other two? I see keywords, but not description, was unendorsed from the beginning, which suggests a misclassification by the original proposer. I think someone should reclassify both as proposals. Would it be okay if I did? Nick 08:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

On description: resolved. Ian Hickson reports that it's in HTML5, and it is, in section 4.2.5.1 (I had forgotten). On keywords: he didn't mention them in his reply but moved them within the Wiki from unendorsed to failed, and I've submitted a bug report for reconsideration of that decision: W3C Bug 6853. Nick 09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

rights: why reversion

I'm reverting for these reasons:

The revision's added content was largely redundant of the link element rel="license" that, per <http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions>, is already in HTML5 (see section 6.12.3.9 of the W3C Working Draft of 8-25-09). The link uses URLs instead of standardized strings, but those URLs can be used the same way as the proposed strings, i.e., a search engine or UA can recognize the URLs without repeatedly fetching as equivalent to the strings. And the set of URLs is essentially extensible without requiring registration here, which simplifies the tag's use.

The proposed string "coprYYYY" is probably not legally sufficient notice even in the U.S., and around the world what that notice must state may vary. It's too much for us to list all the possibilities. Let the page author write such notice as they see fit and let the search engines store or refer to it as they see fit without abbreviating it.

I doubt the proposed code/content distinction can be legally defined in this way and the distinction recognized in a court of law applying copyright law. Most judges and lawyers probably don't know how Internet standards are promulgated. For example, arrangement is copyrightable and a judge might conclude that in copyright law code is one thing and arrangement of the code is another. I haven't researched case law on point but doing so is pointless when copyright law is in many nations that each have their own laws. My proposal is more flexible and thus better able to meet page authors' needs.

The legal needs require a way of writing arbitrary or free-form text (not arbitrary as lawyers use that term).

The revision is more complicated to implement.

The revision doesn't cover multiple licensing for one work. The HTML5 working draft carries an assertion of two licenses. So does Perl, the language. When two licenses are said to apply, a relationship has to be defined, perhaps that the user can choose which to apply, perhaps one applies for commercial use and the other for noncommercial use, or whatever. The revision apparently required multiple meta tags but didn't propose that. If a search engine might take multiple meta rights tags as conflicting, things can get confusing and legal rights may be lost.

The revision doesn't cover multiple licensing for multiple works on one page. Free-form text in the meta tag would allow that. For example, "The photograph may be available from the Permissions Department at . . .; the text is licensed under . . .; the arrangement is the property of . . .; and the music is licensed through BMI."

Thank you for the character entity edit.

Perhaps another meta keyword should be proposed, perhaps rights-standard, to use what was proposed? Would it serve a purpose that link wouldn't?

Thanks. Nick 07:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying -- my point of view would be that it would be beneficial for a machine-readable/parsable value for use in searching, cataloging, etc. Free-form text makes this very difficult, if not impossible to apply to any degree. If the page author is providing a legal notice of copyright, then they must provide the country-appropriate copyright notice visible to the page viewer (in the content itself). Copyright Notice, Deposit, and Registration § 17, 4 U.S.C.§ 401 (2007)

My fear is without caselaw to guide us on the enforceability or applicability of this new way of embedding copyright in the code, we are setting up a standard that will not last past the first court case. Am I confused about the rationale behind this tag? What does it accomplish that a notice the page's viewable content area wouldn't?

>Perhaps another meta keyword should be proposed, perhaps rights-standard, to use what was proposed? I'll do just that -- thank you. BryanH 16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)