[question] Is this curated on comprehensive collection?

[myfonj]

@joshbuchea in #135 (comment) makes statement that

HEAD is a curated collection […], rather than comprehensive.

Current project claim reads:

A list of everything that could go in the head of your document.

I see many deprecated or (presently) invalid entries were omitted (e.g. DC.*) or removed (eg. keywords) what supports first statement but FMOPW contradicts the latter.

In this case, shouldn't be that claim reworded to reflect it, like »curated list of everything currently at least slightly meaningful […]`? (What are curation rules?)

Or should the claim be kept as is and all known obsolete and historical entries introduced or returned back to produce exhaustive documentation resource? (It would be nice.)

[scottaohara]

there was a purposeful change to move over to a curated collection.

the exhaustive documentation was, well, exhausting and incomplete. There are tons of obscure and more importantly, completely bunk and useless meta elements out there.

Seems to me that the wording should just be updated in that one location to rectify this. @joshbuchea you have other thoughts?

[myfonj]

Thanks for clarification.

There are tons of obscure and more importantly, completely bunk and useless meta elements out there.

Exactly. If only there was some convenient document where all those traps and relics were debunked and explained in one place… (Pardon gentle irony.) I just wanted to point out that, perhaps, instead of simply removing or preventing some obsolete content it might be worth to archive it in some kind of "attic", accompanied with explanations why it is there. This could prevent confusion of newcomers and (perhaps) recurrent irrelevant PRs/issues. (I'm not familiar with this project and please do not take this as criticism. It is perfectly OK to keep "curated" vision, the better if it will be reflected in updated claim.)

[scottaohara]

If only there was some convenient document where all those traps and relics were debunked and explained in one place…

Completely ignores

the exhaustive documentation was, well, exhausting and incomplete

It's not just "some" content, it was a lot of useless junk. One of the reasons it was all removed was because the document was almost more useless tags than actually stuff to put in the head.

[myfonj]

[the "junk"] was all removed was because the document was almost more useless tags than actually stuff to put in the head.

It is quite clear indeed, and considering the scale of such disproportion it was truly reasonable move. Still, idea of archived separate growing "junkyard" isolated from main HEAD curated core just for historical and curiosity purposes is quite appealing to me, because such complement could add former comprehensiveness without compromising tidiness of the core. But probably not worth the effort, as you imply.

[Joshfindit]

@myfonj If you forked this repo, you would have a decent starting point for creating such an archive. I suspect that the two projects could effectively market each other as well

[Joshfindit]

To close the ticket however, a simple re-wording seems the course that’s most fitting with the current project goals