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: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:25:09 +0100
Message-ID: <4E317145.9080906@ninebynine.org>
To: Yogesh Simmhan <simmhan@usc.edu>
CC: 'Khalid Belhajjame' <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>, 'Provenance Working Group WG' <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Ah, thanks.  Do you think that's worth referencing?  I'm not sure it's 
substantive enough to be worth the reader's additional attention.

#g
--


Yogesh Simmhan wrote:
> 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 14:35:36 GMT

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