W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

RE: Opacity and resource metadata (was Re: proposed TAG issues: uniform resource version info and access of resource metadata

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:16:30 +0100
To: Ossi Nykanen <onykane@butler.cc.tut.fi>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEEBJFOAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Ossi Nykanen
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 12:03 PM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Opacity and resource metadata (was Re: proposed TAG issues:
> uniform resource version info and access of resource metadata
>
> ...
>
> In other words, the point that I'm trying to make is that if we all use
> our _own_ ways to give references to our metadata (that's what we're doing
> today), we face great difficulties in practise. You use "Up-to-date:", I
> use "Version-controlled-resource:", Zaphney uses element <meta> in the
> content, etc. If there was a clear, W3C-endorsed recommendation about
> which policy to follow, making SW/WS applications would simplify a great
> deal (a uniform reference to "all" metadata declared by a resource, i.e.,
> a single access point where to look metadata from). If WebDAV+DeltaV is
> (will be) such policy, it would be nice if it was clearly stated
> somewhere.

Well. HTTP is an RFC published by the IETF. So are WebDAV and DeltaV
(versioning). How can it get more "official"?


> ...

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 10:17:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:13 GMT