W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 08:14:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4E2BC65A.9030207@ninebynine.org>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
That you raise this means it clearly needs clarifying in the text.  In the sense 
I intended, <meta> could similarly be used _only_ for documents presented as HTML.

I think a new <meta> tag would require more new specification than builing on 
the <link> work.  Technically, I don't think there's much to choose, but I feel 
that hooking into the link type registry will seem more clear-cut to potential 
users, hence have better take-up.  It's a judgement call.

#g
--

Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/36
> 
> Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame
> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
> 
> The Powder <link> element is used to specify the provenance of documents presented as HTML. I am wondering why choosing this option instead of simply using the <meta> tag which is supported by plain HTML. Is there any reason behind this choice? Was it simply because there was a desire to be consistent and use POWDER for accessing both HTTP and HTML resources? 
> 
> Khalid
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 24 July 2011 07:28:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:37 GMT