I think you misunderstand the issue. Where meta tags are used for redirects they are emulating HTTP headers, which is a valid use for them and will remain so imho.
What we are talking about here is _metadata_, expressed in _META_ tags, and the purpose of this is to aid information discovery: to classify and identify the resource requested (or sought). To this end, the uses of metadata as expressed in the HEAD section of a webpage has never been well-supported (search engines excluded once upon a time) and has never taken advantage of any structured schema (ok well keywords/description may be taken as a schema...).
The real money is found in other protocols, where the metadata record only is transferred between parties and only in the end usage scenario is the actual resource identifier summoned. This requires a whole extra element of trust as the identifiers are not checked except, perhaps, when the initial metadata record is created. And note the resource itself need not be burdened with any metadata payload - the client can do nothing with that in anycase.
So I go to the BT site (here) and i make a search : here's what happened...
[cut'n'paste...]
You asked : idiots lose hypertext patent claim
Here are the best links:
Where can I read about BT's Customer Service Guarantee and make a claim for compensation?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misunderstand the issue. Where meta tags are used for redirects they are emulating HTTP headers, which is a valid use for them and will remain so imho.
What we are talking about here is _metadata_, expressed in _META_ tags, and the purpose of this is to aid information discovery: to classify and identify the resource requested (or sought). To this end, the uses of metadata as expressed in the HEAD section of a webpage has never been well-supported (search engines excluded once upon a time) and has never taken advantage of any structured schema (ok well keywords/description may be taken as a schema...).
The real money is found in other protocols, where the metadata record only is transferred between parties and only in the end usage scenario is the actual resource identifier summoned. This requires a whole extra element of trust as the identifiers are not checked except, perhaps, when the initial metadata record is created. And note the resource itself need not be burdened with any metadata payload - the client can do nothing with that in anycase.
pete
[cut'n'paste...]
which sounds about right...
Stridebird sees through windows like they're made of glass too. Except when they're open.
Well that begs the question:
...one in the eye hurts more than two in the bush
How do i "vechicle" myself?
oh it was a typo? hard to tell in this thread...