- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:50:33 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
HI Graham, On 24/07/2011 08:14, Graham Klyne wrote: > 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. I think I agree with you. Although it is the possibility of using the <meta> tag, using "link" provides tghe advantage of being somewhat uniform across different representations, viz. "HTML" and "HTTP". Probably we should mention in the text, as you suggested, that although the <meta> tag could be used, it will require more new specification compared with the use of <link>. Thanks, khalid > > #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 10:51:02 UTC