- From: Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 08:26:18 -0800
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, yarong@microsoft.com
Yaron Goland wrote: | Terry Allen - I am actually a big believer in XML. However, while I do | believe that leveraging XML would make for a great meta-data system, I I suggested nothing of the sort. | do not believe that this group should deal with that issue. There are a Nor that either. | lot of arguments on both sides and I do not believe that the win for | this group is sufficiently large to justify the group's investment of | time. Many groups have attempted to solve the generic meta-data problem, | the current proposals I am familiar with include: XML, Web Collections XML is not an attempt to solve the generic metadata (one word) problem, and in fact that group is shying away from facing the issue. | (sub-setting XML), Warwick Framework, MIMEDIR, and PICS. I am sure you | can imagine what life will be like if this group tries to pick a winner. | I say we do the minimum needed for interoperability, declare victory, | and publish the standard. =) I concurred with Ron in approbating multipart/related. On the basis of precisely parallel issues that have arisen in the XML discussion, I think the minimum structure required to relate metadata and documents is something like multipart/related. As MIME is an existing, implemented technology, it makes sense to use it. Alternately, you can define the semantics necessary to use multipart/related or any other syntax, and let implementors try out various syntaxes. Regards, Terry Allen Electronic Publishing Consultant tallen[at]sonic.net specializing in Web publishing, SGML, and the DocBook DTD http://www.sonic.net/~tallen/ A Davenport Group Sponsor: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 1997 11:24:56 UTC