W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: Meta Data Handling

From: Michael Mealling <michaelm@rwhois.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:29:59 -0500
Message-ID: <332EB4F7.5B28@rwhois.net>
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Yaron Goland wrote:
> In order to keep the meta-data model "light", I further propose that
> meta-data take the form of a header. In addition I recommend that
> meta-data behave like headers in that multiple pieces of meta-data with
> the same header name must be unambiguously combinable using commas.
> In order to handle the assignment, modification, discovery, and removal
> of meta-data I propose adding three new methods - METAPOST, METAGET, and
> METADELETE. These methods, defined below, accept meta-data that is
> structured like HTTP headers for assignment to a resource through
> METAPOST. Allow for the discovery of meta-data through METAGET and
> finally allow for the removal of meta-data through METADELETE.
> METAPOST is meant to be a more generic form of LINK, METADELETE a more
> generic form of UNLINK, and METAGET is the equivalent of GETLINKVAL for
> this type of meta-data.

  I realize the need for a light HTTP oriented metadata method. I
would make the suggestion that instead of using the method
names of META* that some other name is used since at least in
my world I would assume that a method with a name that
general should be able to handle metadata in a general way.
I.e. when we begin to to REAL metadata standards stuff
in HTTP we're probably going to want to use those methods
for more generalized stuff. Its similar to some
current proposals for a new HTML tag to actually
fix the META tag.

  I would also urge you to look at the application/directory
MIME type as a way of doing "light" metadata but I think
you have more of a desire to actually do it within HTTP 
itself, right?

Received on Tuesday, 18 March 1997 10:37:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:14 UTC