- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:42:32 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "connolly@w3.org" <connolly@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Sorry for my outburst, and thanks for responding with more civility than I showed. I've been staring at this issue for over a year and am getting tired of it I guess... I think I have always said: Things like RDFa and XMP are great and should be used whenever possible. If you use "outboard metadata" in situations where you can also control embedded metadata, you should not use the outboard channel in preference to the embedded channel - any outboard metadata should in this situation be a subset of the embedded metadata, an alternative path. That said, controllable embedded metadata is not always possible or practical, so there are some situations where there will be information in the outboard metadata that is not carried by the "representation". (Would it help if I gave you a list of content-types that do *not* support embedded metadata? Surely you can imagine this list as easily as I can.) And fully uniform access to metadata (across ALL media types) is unherently outboard. What sort of usage guide do we need here, and how should it be published? I don't think the RFC will be a good place to go over all these issues. Maybe my TAG review from last May (the one that began this thread) could evolve into more of a how-to, complementing Eran's work. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 11:43:14 UTC