Quote:
Originally Posted by pepak
You may want to contact a proofer or another - so you need an e-mail and possibly some IM. You can add them to the list (into parentheses, or something), but if the amount of data still increases, the list will become even less readable.
|
Hadn't thought of contacting them, that makes sense. Given the below comments, I think I would go with putting them into parentheses.
Quote:
Do you have any specific reason why you don't want to use multiple meta's?
Code:
<meta name="proofer" content="Person A" />
<meta name="proofer" content="Person B" />
<meta name="proofer" content="Person C" />
Consistently, you could do all multiple-value metas this way, e.g. for author. Reason being, it makes sense to place a book by A. Smith and B. Johnson both among "Smith books" and "Johnson books".
|
I assumed that all the meta names needed to be unique. If they don't, then I'm for not numbering them, and just adding multiple meta's as necessary.
Quote:
|
Personally, I prefer the SQL-standard of yyyy-mm-dd, which is easy to sort even in textual form.
|
Just as easy the other way, and closer to how we (well, americans) speak. At least I'm abandoning the american, mmm/dd/yyyy, which is the way it is because it's
exactly the way we speak. Plus, I'll get confused if I do it that way, I know I will.
Oh, and looking at your example, I realize I didn't terminate the meta tags with />...
m a r