W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2011

RE: Issue-57

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:48:39 -0700
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05CAF7CB24@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>

> Wouldn't it be safer to use a license embedded in R (i.e. in HTML
> META tags)?

> (Advising against using RDF is funny to hear from someone who puts RDF
> in their email signature.)

> Not all metadata can be embedded, either.

I'd like to pursue this a little. "Embedding" is the primary way of
accomplishing "with as strong a location proximity as possible".
Perhaps "most" formats can be extended to support embedding,
with only a few exceptions (e.g., text/plain)  where the metadata
needs to be linked or stored closely.

You could say the same for "buckets of bits" vs. "typed representations",
e.g., I send you a stream of bytes but you need some additional
data (the content-type) to actually interpret the bytes.

It's best if the hints for content-type are embedded (with 'magic numbers'
or other kinds of content-type sniffing hints), but in other cases you need
additional data that is in some other kind of proximity.

Is there a theory that explains both metadata linking and content-type
sniffing?

Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 19:49:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:36 GMT