>> That's pretty crazy. META HTTP-EQUIV is used to specify HTTP document headers.
>> "Description:" wasn't an HTTP header, last time I checked. InfoSeek
>> is violating standards here.
>uh? Are you sure... HTTP-EQUIV is used to bind an element to the HTTP
>response header, but you must consider these elements as extensions of the
>HTTP response header (allowed in the extension header field)
You are absolutely correct (RFC 1945, section 7.1).
My apologies to the list and InfoSeek.
>> However, if this was a conscious decision
>> on their part, it is rather interesting: it allows you to get your images,
>> sound bites, etc., indexed by sending them out with Description: headers.
>uh? How can you use a META tag in a GIF or JPEG file?
That's my point: if it's defined as HTTP-EQUIV, it is an HTTP header,
so it can be attached to any type of document. (By means of a CGI script,
for example.)
>The problem is that there isn't an accepted standard to describe these meta info
>and now there is the tendency to describe new methodolgies and not to formalize
>the existents.
A quick look at the outcome of the indexing workshop reveals a suggested
standard using <META NAME="..." CONTENT="...">
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Search/9605-Indexing-Workshop/ReportOutcomes/S6Group2.html
-- Reinier Post reinpost@win.tue.nl