META tags

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?L=FCpher_Cypher?=]

Hi,
I am wondering if anyone knows of a good page that describes meta tags,
including examples of the content for both http-equiv/name. Basically, I
want something that describes meta tags in full. I've found a list of
http-equiv/name values at http://www.html-reference.com/META.htm though
I am not sure if those are all.


Thank you!

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

I am wondering if anyone knows of a good page that describes meta tags,

A good page describing all the useful meta tags would be almost empty.

Basically, I
want something that describes meta tags in full. I've found a list of
http-equiv/name values at http://www.html-reference.com/META.htm though
I am not sure if those are all.

No, those aren't all. It lacks <meta name="dwim" content="and do it now">,
for example.

The crucial question is which meta tags are _used_ by some software - not
which meta tags are emitted by some authoring software or invented by some
wannabe reference writer. We roughly end up with
- http-equiv="Content-Type", used by browsers _if_ there is no
corresponding real HTTP header
- name="robots", used by well-behaving robots (spiders)
- name="keywords" and/or name="description", used by _a few_ search
engines, typically with weight equal to normal text.

 

[Richard Brooks]

Hi,
I am wondering if anyone knows of a good page that describes meta tags,
including examples of the content for both http-equiv/name. Basically, I
want something that describes meta tags in full. I've found a list of
http-equiv/name values at http://www.html-reference.com/META.htm though
I am not sure if those are all.


Thank you!

This might help;

<http://vancouver-webpages.com/META/>


Richard.

 

[Chaddy2222]

Hi,
I am wondering if anyone knows of a good page that describes meta tags,
including examples of the content for both http-equiv/name. Basically, I
want something that describes meta tags in full. I've found a list of
http-equiv/name values at http://www.html-reference.com/META.htm though
I am not sure if those are all.

This site may help.
http://www.webdeveloper.com/html/html_metatags.html
Note that some SE's such as Google do not like the use of some meta
tags and will ignore or not place high importents on them.

Thank you!

That's fine.

 

[Greg N.]

- name="keywords" and/or name="description", used by _a few_ search
engines, typically with weight equal to normal text.

What do you mean? Font weight of keywords inside a meta tag? What's that?

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Greg N. quothed:

What do you mean? Font weight of keywords inside a meta tag? What's that?

He means 'the importance of normal text'. Jukka is from Finland and
although I don't speak Finch, I understand the midnight-sun mindset.

 

[John Salerno]

A good page describing all the useful meta tags would be almost empty.


No, those aren't all. It lacks <meta name="dwim" content="and do it now">,
for example.

The crucial question is which meta tags are _used_ by some software - not
which meta tags are emitted by some authoring software or invented by some
wannabe reference writer. We roughly end up with
- http-equiv="Content-Type", used by browsers _if_ there is no
corresponding real HTTP header
- name="robots", used by well-behaving robots (spiders)
- name="keywords" and/or name="description", used by _a few_ search
engines, typically with weight equal to normal text.

What about:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />

That is listed in the W3C recommendation for a DTD (including the
capital letters).

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

What about:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />

Useless (and the fancy extra "/" makes a page invalid by HTML 4.01 rules).

That is listed in the W3C recommendation for a DTD (including the
capital letters).

For a DTD? Sorry, but that does not make any sense.

The tag is still useless. Even if some odd browser cared to look at it, it
would default to CSS anyway. (Besides, the tag would be pointless even if it
were observed: it does not say which version of CSS should be used to
interpret the style sheets.)

 

[John Salerno]

Useless (and the fancy extra "/" makes a page invalid by HTML 4.01 rules).

I'm confused about when the " />" closing tag causes problems. So far
I've never seen anything odd on webpages that use it. What will cause it
to be a problem?

 

[Andy Dingley]

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

I'm confused about when the " />" closing tag causes problems. So far
I've never seen anything odd on webpages that use it.

What will cause it to be a problem?

A browser that accurately and fully implemented the standards.

So we're pretty safe!

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Andy Dingley quothed:

A browser that accurately and fully implemented the standards.

So we're pretty safe!

Uh, don't forget about the forthcoming IE7...