Revised draft finding: Authoritative Metadata

Dear www-tag,

I've revised the finding "Authoritative Metadata" [1] based
on reviews from Roy Fielding [2] and Stuart Williams [3].
The primary changes from the 27 Jan 2004 draft were:

 - Almost wholesale incorporation of Roy's text, with
   some edits.
 - Almost wholesale incorporation of Stuart's comments.
 - Addressing comments from Paul Cotton about means of
   obtaining user consent.

Highlights:

 * The abstract and summary of key points is clearer. I did
   edit RF's text in section one to phrase the links to later
   sections as questions raised by the architectural points.
 * Third scenario added (section 2.3); some text taken from
   section 5.
 * More rationale behind the role of metadata and the choice
   of making sender metadata authoritative. Per suggestion from
   SW, list a couple of other potential sources of metadata.
 * Removed firewall example from 3.3
 * Replaced pretty printing example in 3.3., last bullet,
   with URI checking example
 * Beginning of 4.1 now explains better what user consent
   means and ways to achieve it.
 * Moved some subsections of 4 around for readability.

I created a diff file but it wasn't very useful. Sections
6 and 7 did not change.

You are invited to review and comment on this revision.
Thank you,

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20040218
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Feb/0008
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Feb/0007

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447