On Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 4:16:26 PM, Bert wrote: BB> 4) Section 6 Extended metadata: If it is in XML and is metadata, it BB> would seem logical to have chosen XMP. Existing XMP and RDF tools BB> would be able to read it, no need for new parsers; it could be linked BB> to other RDF ontologies, to enable Semantic Web tools to make BB> inferences; and it would be extensible without the need to have BB> different syntaxes for predefined and extended elements. We aren't sure exactly what you are asking for. Are you asking that the entire metadata section be replaced by a block written in the Adobe XMP language? If so, are there examples where XMP has been used to express licensing information 9for fonts or for other media, such as images)? Are you asking that the entire metadata section be replaced by an entirely open-ended 'anything you want as long as its RDF' block, and if so how could that be interpreted in there is no predefined vocabulary at all? Tracker, this relates to ACTION-71: Clarify Bert Bos' Point 4 -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working GroupsReceived on Wednesday, 9 February 2011 14:45:21 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:10 GMT