Quote from: Kristalin at Jul 06, 2010, 12:33 PM
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=[(etomite_charset)]" />
Etomite? Sacrilege!
Quote from: Kristalin at Jul 06, 2010, 12:33 PM
<meta name="Robots" content="All" />
<meta name="Robots" content="Index, Follow, All" />
I find this redundant but you may have a reason for doing it this way. Afaik this is an equivalent of the shorter version I use:
<meta name="robots" content="index, follow" />
Personally I don’t do this but it technically *could* even be shortened to:
<meta name="robots" content="all" />
What do I think about Meta’s? Some should always be used as they are very clearly important for SEs and browsers(robots,keywords,description,language, specifying charset). I go with less is more and usually only cover these.
Some may or may not be used by machines but probably aren’t (publisher,designer,distribution - correct me if I’m wrong). Some potentially add value if you’re website is not your ’standard website’ (rating). Some are obviously not relevant because the user agents have been, by default, assuming correctly since like forever (Content-Style-Type, Content-Script-Type). Finally some should be handled with care (no-cache - causes extra traffic, make sure your content changes a lot or just let it cache, just my 0.02$).
I didn’t know about Dublin Core META Tags and generally I welcome standards very much. Personally I wouldn’t implement any of it before search engines support and promote it though.
☆ A M B ☆
☆ A M B ☆
nope
☆ A M B ☆
