W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Revisiting Authoritative Metadata (was: The failure of Appendix C as a transition technique)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:52:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CALcoZipN8U18L91AqnDDkWOtG8ggAJhBic-amHrAbEoPuFeRew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:
> On 22/02/2013 08:22 , Larry Masinter wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps the TAG finding on "Authoritative metadata" needs to be
>> re-reviewed and made into a consensus Req (and snwiffing between
>> XHTML and HTML disallowed).
>
>
> I would support the TAG revisiting the topic of Authoritative Metadata, but
> with a view on pointing out that it is an architectural antipattern.
> Information that is essential and authoritative about the processing of a
> payload should be part of the payload and not external to it. Anything else
> is brittle and leads to breakage.

Robin, could you please back up those bold claims, perhaps by pointing
out the problems with the current "Why embedded metadata is less
authoritative" section?

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect#embedded

>From my POV, that section doesn't go far enough in explaining the
problems with embedded metadata. In particular it fails to point out
the security problems with format masquerading.

Mark.
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 16:53:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 16:53:08 GMT