Specification For HTML Meta Element with Name Value Pro-Auth-Fragment
Section 1: Introduction
This is the specification for the HTML meta element with the name attribute value set to “pro-auth-fragment”. This is version 1.1 of this specification. Non-normatively, there is an article about this specification and closely-related specifications include Specification For HTML Meta Element with Name Value Pro, Specification For HTML Meta Element with Name Value Pro-Auth, and Specification For HTML Meta Element with Name Value Pro-Auth-Field.
HTML is the HyperText Markup Language, which is a commonly used, perhaps the most commonly used, non-natural language for pages hosted on the World Wide Web. HTML is generally written approximately in accordance with specifications that have been revised several times. Two of those HTML specifications are the HTML Living Standard (as updated and (One-Page Version treated here as if authoritative) (<https://html.spec.whatwg.org/>, as accessed and )) and HTML 5.1 (version of ) (<http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/single-page.html>, as accessed before and on ). The HTML Living Standard is maintained by the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) and HTML 5.1 is maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Each of those HTML specifications specifies numerous elements and, in section 4.2.5 of each such HTML specification, one such element is the meta element. For that element, each of those HTML specifications specifies attributes including the name attribute, specifies some names that can be values for that attribute (limited to one such value per such attribute per such element), and provides, in section 22.214.171.124 of each such HTML specification, a means by which extensional or additional names may be proposed to be values for that attribute, each such proposal to include a link to a specification for that extensional or additional name. This specification may appropriately be linked to from such a proposal.
This specification, as published on this page and which, except as otherwise stated, is normative, shall also apply, insofar as compatible, to any specification of the HTML Living Standard or of HTML 5.1 other than those referenced above and of any version preceding or succeeding HTML 5.1; except that it shall not apply to any page authored before this specification was first published (the date of such first publication being stated below).
Sec. 1.1: Definitions and Construction
The words and phrases must, must not, required, shall, shall not, should, should not, recommended, may, and optional in this specification and regardless of capitalization are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 (also known as BCP 14).
Authority is as defined in the specification for the HTML meta element with the name attribute value set to “pro-auth”.
Expertise is as defined in the specification for the HTML meta element with the name attribute value set to “pro”.
The word field, as used in this specification, is a noun that means ‘subject’ or ‘topic’.
A partial URL is as defined in the specification for the HTML meta element with the name attribute value set to “pro-auth”.
In this specification, if a string, including a null string and a non-null string with no visible or displaying characters, is rendered (including being displayed) with or surrounded by single quotation marks which are curved when a font in which this specification may be displayed has single quotation marks as both straight and curved or is rendered (including being displayed) with or surrounded by double quotation marks which are curved when a font in which this specification may be displayed has double quotation marks as both straight and curved, then the quotation marks that may thus be curved are, unless otherwise stated in this specification, not part of the string. Thus, generally, the string represented by “example” is only seven characters long, not nine.
Sec. 1.2: Problem Being Solved
This specification, together with those for the HTML meta elements with the name attribute value set to “pro”, “pro-auth”, or “pro-auth-field”, is intended to aid search engines and directory compilers in evaluating the authority of World Wide Web sites that purport to offer expertise; and other uses are not forbidden by this specification.
This specification does not require that two or more websites with the meta “pro-auth-fragment” element be coordinated, discoordinated, in agreement, or in disagreement with each other with respect to such element, even if they have a claim to the same authority or field of expertise. (Non-normatively, website owners may require or forbid coordination or agreement of their websites with each other.) (Non-normatively, an example is that the management of a search engine may consider that more than one entity may claim expertise on neurobiology or on how to win lotteries and the management should make its decisions while aware of that possibility, such as by judging different neurobiology authorities perhaps unequally.)
The balance of this subsection is non-normative.
With respect to all four of the elements: Expertise can be difficult to evaluate except by authorities on the same subject. Without reliable evaluations, search engine results may elevate inexpert websites above expert websites because of unrelated factors. A solution is to consider the advice of known knowledgeable authorities, especially those generally recognized for their authority. A professional organization, government agency, scholar, journalist, publisher of peer-reviewed works, judging panel awarding widely-respected merit-based prizes, or other entity that recognizes expertise within a fragment may be an authority that may recognize some specific websites as having related expertise. A website and an authority may agree with each other that the website likely provides expert content. Meta elements could establish that relationship. A search engine’s management could then decide how much trust or weight to give the authority. Judging each website’s level of expertise would not be necessary for the search engine to do, because that would be left to the authority who has a list of experts. The search engine’s management would only have to evaluate how much weight the particular authority deserves. Judging a small number of authorities would be easier than judging a large number of experts, saving the search engine’s human staff time and allowing more reliance on automated algorithms.
With respect to the element under this specification (“pro-auth-fragment”): A link to expertise would have to be within a fragment, or within several fragments devoted to links to expertise. Several sets of links to expert content could be on the same page, perhaps on different subjects or with different degrees of expertise or perhaps compiled by diifferent contributors on behalf of the authority, and each set could be in a separate fragment. Those fragments would together include all of the expert links. Any link that’s not considered as carrying a laurel of expertise would have to be outside of the expert fragments (it wouldn’t matter if they’re in some other fragment, as long as they’re not in one of these expert fragments.) The fragments could have any fragment names the page author cares to assign, the author being free to apply a naming convention or not. What would make clear to a search engine which fragments contain the links to expertise would be the “pro-auth-fragment” metatags on the page and listing the fragments for expertise, one tag per fragment. The relationship of authority then would apply only to links within the fragments listed in one of the “pro-auth-fragment” meta elements on that page.
Sec. 2: Method
If there is an HTML meta element with the name attribute value set to “pro-auth”, there shall be an HTML meta element with the name attribute value set to “pro-auth-fragment” and the content attribute value set to one number sign character (“#”) spacelessly followed by one fragment identifier (the element (with the name attribute value set to “pro-auth-fragment”) herein referred to, regardless of the content attribute value, as “such meta ‘pro-auth-fragment’ element”). Such fragment identifier shall identify an indicated part of the page on which page such meta “pro-auth-fragment” element is present (if the indicated part of the page is the entire page then the indicated part of the page is “top” and the fragment identifier therefor would be “#top” (non-normatively, it is noted that, because of design or layout and the common presence of other content, it is an uncommon page for which the indicated part of the page would be the entire page)). In such part there shall be authority-qualifying content as specified in the specification for the HTML element with the name attribute value set to “pro-auth”. In such part no link may be to a URL that is not to a website page of an expert in one or more fields in which the creator of the page with an HTML meta element with the name attribute value set to “pro-auth” claims to be an authority.
There may be more than one such meta “pro-auth-fragment” element provided that each has in the content attribute value a different fragment identifier. Non-normatively, it is noted that if the authority has claimed multiple fields using “pro-auth-field” meta elements it would usually be clearer to use different fragment identifiers for different fields (it is possible to surround a single item of content with two elements each with an id attribute so that the same content may be identified with two different fragment identifiers). Non-normatively, it is noted that the fragment identifier in the content attribute value is spacelessly preceded by the number sign in order to reserve for the future the possibility of additional strings that are not fragment identifiers in the same value.
If there is no HTML meta element with the name attribute value set to “pro-auth”, there shall not be any such meta “pro-auth-fragment” element.
The absence of such meta “pro-auth-fragment” element shall not have a meaning other than possibly of nonconformance with this specification.
This specification does not require or recommend that any entity have any responsibility for any person, website, content, or usage not otherwise the responsibility of such entity. The duty of such entity to act in accordance with law is irrespective of this specification. Non-normatively, it is noted that such entity should consider the risks of authority and of claiming, providing, publishing, associating with, and promoting purported authority with respect to expertise and may disclaim to the extent permitted by law.
Anyone (this non-normatively includes search engines and Web directory editors) may use other means to evaluate whether and, if so, where to include any authority-qualifying content (non-normatively, this generally would be one or more URLs for expertise) in its content and may decline so to evaluate.
This paragraph is non-normative. A search engine, Web directory, or other consumer of a page with an HTML meta element with the name attribute value set to “pro-auth” is free to determine whether the field of expertise stated in an HTML meta element with the name attribute value set to “pro-auth-field” on the same page is important enough to warrant considering whether the creator of that page is at all an authority in that field, then whether that creator is an authority in that field and to what nonnegative degree, and then, for those creators it considers authoritative to any nonzero degree, to determine whether any of the URLs linked to by the “pro-auth” authority who have an HTML meta element with the name attribute value set to “pro” where both have the same partial URL warrant positioning in search results in accordance with the level of expertise determined in view of the presence of such meta “pro-auth-fragment” element.
Sec. 3: Security, History, and Backwards Compatibility
This section is non-normative except as otherwise stated.
Sec. 3.1: Security
A website owner may prefer privacy against disclosing to the public whom the owner believes to be expert and whom not, but use of this meta element may preclude such privacy. Otherwise, no security implication has been identified with respect to this specification.
Sec. 3.2: History
The original author and editor of this specification, except as otherwise stated, was Nick Levinson, who can be contacted through a link on this page.
Version 1 of this specification was published on this page on . Version 1 was revised into version 1.0.1, published on . Version 1.0.1 was revised into 1.0.2 on . Version 1.0.2 was revised into this version on .
Sec. 3.3: Backwards Compatibility
In a future version, backwards compatibility should be provided.
Sec. 4: Intellectual Property For This Specification
Sec. 4.1: Copyright Status
Insofar as lawful, with respect to the CC0 1.0 Universal legal tool (herein “CC0”) (summarized at https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) (both URLs as accessed ) of the Creative Commons Corporation organization, Nick Levinson, the original author and editor of this specification, has, upon first publication of this specification, hereby become the Affirmer under CC0 and hereby elected to apply CC0 to this specification, to publicly distribute this specification, and to make this specification available all as provided for in CC0 and hereby waived, abandoned, surrendered, granted, affirmed, offered, and disclaimed all as provided for in CC0 with respect to this specification.
Sec. 4.2: Trademarks, Endorsements, and Associations
“Creative Commons” is a trademark of Creative Commons Corporation; use of such trademark does not imply endorsement by or association with Creative Commons Corporation.
“CC0” is a trademark of Creative Commons Corporation; use of such trademark does not imply endorsement by or association with Creative Commons Corporation.
Sec. 4.3: Other Claims
Except as otherwise referenced, the original author and editor of this specification, Nick Levinson, is not aware of any claim by any other person or entity to intellectual property adversely affecting this specification.
Sec. 5: Section Titles Not Restrictive
Titles of sections, including subsections at all subsectional depths, are provided solely for convenience and do not restrict the meaning of the content of the respective sections. Titles of sections include headlines of sections.