W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2006

Review of Authoritative Metadata

From: Rice, Ed (ProCurve) <ed.rice@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:23:09 -0800
Message-ID: <7D6953BFA3975C44BD80BA89292FD60E048DFFDD@cacexc08.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>

Roy/TAG,

Some thoughts on the latest Authoritative Metadata paper at
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060307

1 - In Section 2 you state "For Web architecture, a design choice has
been made that metadata received in an encapsulating container MUST be
considered authoritative.."
	Question:  Is this a 'design choice' or a 'determination'?  A
design choice seems to leave it open to more interpretation than a TAG
determination..

2 - 3.3 external reference metadata is least authoritative.
	Question: In deference to most html, doc types I would agree.
Is the same true however to xml?  Is the WSDL least authoritative in
regards to a SOAP message?  I believe by definition the WSDL is THE
authoritative source as to the format of the doc when it comes to web
services (please correct me if I'm wrong).  Clearly in this instance the
WSDL would specify xml, but the element structure/types within the xml
are also defined in the meta data of the WSDL.  I would also think the
same applies to an xml/xsd relationship where the xsd is the
authoritative source regarding the structure of the xml?

The first item can clearly be dropped into the 'nit' bucket, the 2nd
item I'd like to hear your thoughts on..

-Ed
Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 20:23:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:39 GMT