On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:44, David Goodger wrote:
> I've revised my design, for three reasons. First, I think of the docinfo as
> the "copyright page" metadata stuff, and the abstract doesn't belong there.
> Second, because unlike all the other docinfo elements which contain only
> text (%text.model;), abstracts may contain multiple body elements. Third, I
> already had (artificial, in retrospect) limitations on abstracts: there
> could be only one, and it had to be at the end of the docinfo.
>
> Working on my HTML Writer forced me to think about the roles of the various
> pieces. Abstracts work as a fixed-title mini section.
OK, I was trying to shoe-horn abstracts into meta descriptions, which is out
of their scope :)
> Over time you'll see that I continually evolve my designs, searching for a
> sometimes-elusive ideal. Please bear with me, and consider *everything*
> experimental until 1.0. It's a pain, I know. (Believe me, I know. It's
> painful to *me* to rip out code sometimes.) But it's for the best.
Sounds fair enough to me.
> If you notice anything that smells bad, please point it out. Debates on the
> mailing lists have helped considerably.
No problem, as long as it's welcome :)
> > I was actually going to stuff the abstract into the html head as a meta
> > description tag.
>
> You can still do that. But what if the abstract is half a page long? Or
> includes a bullet list or table?
The information destined for the HTML meta tags should be PCDATA, yes.
> Besides, there's now a ``.. meta::``
> directive specifically for HTML metadata.
I noticed that when it broke the parser :)
Richard
ps. sorry, meant to cc the list on the last mail, but hit the w0rng button ;)
|
