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: Yogesh Simmhan <simmhan@usc.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 05:59:53 -0700
To: 'Khalid Belhajjame' <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, 'Graham Klyne' <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: 'Provenance Working Group WG' <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <050601cc4d26$3e9f1210$bbdd3630$@usc.edu>
In addition, there is a Note (#2) in the HTML4 spec that suggests that LINK is preferred to META in cases where the property is a URI, as in our case.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#h-7.4.4.2
"Note. When a property specified by a META element takes a value that is a URI, some authors prefer to specify the meta data via the LINK element. Thus, the following meta data declaration:"

--Yogesh

| -----Original Message-----
| From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org]
| On Behalf Of Khalid Belhajjame
| Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 3:51 AM
| To: Graham Klyne
| Cc: Provenance Working Group WG
| Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML
| documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
| 
| HI Graham,
| 
| On 24/07/2011 08:14, Graham Klyne wrote:
| > 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.
| 
| I think I agree with you. Although it is the possibility of using the
| <meta> tag, using "link" provides tghe advantage of being somewhat
| uniform across different representations, viz. "HTML" and  "HTTP".
| Probably we should mention in the text, as you suggested, that although
| the <meta> tag could be used, it will require more new specification
| compared with the use of <link>.
| 
| Thanks, khalid
| 
| >
| > #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 Thursday, 28 July 2011 13:01:15 GMT

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