- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 08:14:34 +0100
- To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
That you raise this means it clearly needs clarifying in the text. In the sense I intended, <meta> could similarly be used _only_ for documents presented as HTML. I think a new <meta> tag would require more new specification than builing on the <link> work. Technically, I don't think there's much to choose, but I feel that hooking into the link type registry will seem more clear-cut to potential users, hence have better take-up. It's a judgement call. #g -- Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-36: Section 3.2: Accessing the provenance of HTML documents [Accessing and Querying Provenance] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/36 > > Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame > On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance > > The Powder <link> element is used to specify the provenance of documents presented as HTML. I am wondering why choosing this option instead of simply using the <meta> tag which is supported by plain HTML. Is there any reason behind this choice? Was it simply because there was a desire to be consistent and use POWDER for accessing both HTTP and HTML resources? > > Khalid > > > >
Received on Sunday, 24 July 2011 07:28:27 UTC