W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > November 2006

Re: [Widgets] Brief feedback

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mikes@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:13:44 +0900
To: public-appformats@w3.org
Message-ID: <20061113071342.GJ5461@malware>
Marcos Caceres <m.caceres@qut.edu.au>, 2006-11-13 12:43 +1000:

> I'm also with Ed on this one. I think the more generic 'manifest.xml' 
> name makes more sense in this context, as a lot of the actual data in 
> the manifest is not used to directly "configure" the application in any 
> significant way... but then again, it all depends on the definition of 
> "configuration".

And it would alse depend on the definition of "manifest"...

In my experience with software at least, a manifest used to be
just a simple list of files (sometimes an annotated list) for the
application, project, package, etc. that it shipped with -- not a
file containing other metadata. Most manifest files I see are
still of that type. I know manifest files for Java apps have other
metadata, but they seem to me to be the exception, not the rule.

So I wonder if, given that the file actually contains metadata, it
might not be better to name it "metadata.xml" or "meta.xml".

But I wouldn't have any heartburn if it ended up being named
manifest.xml -- just as I don't have any about people saying "that
begs the question" to mean "that raises the question" instead of
using it to mean what "begs the question" originally meant (that
is, a certain type of logical fallacy related to circular reasoning).

  --Mike


Received on Monday, 13 November 2006 07:14:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:20 GMT