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

Re: [Widgets] Brief feedback

From: Ed Voas <voas@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:06:40 -0800
Message-ID: <4558A620.6050408@yahoo-inc.com>
To: public-appformats@w3.org
Michael(tm) Smith wrote:

>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".
>
>, a certain type of logical fallacy related to circular reasoning).
>  
>
Hmm, yeah that's true. I had considered metadata.xml. Of course, we 
could go Apple-like and name it Info.xml.

-- Ed
Received on Monday, 13 November 2006 17:07:25 GMT

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