- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:16:30 +0100
- To: Ossi Nykanen <onykane@butler.cc.tut.fi>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of > Ossi Nykanen > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 12:03 PM > To: Mark Baker > Cc: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: Re: Opacity and resource metadata (was Re: proposed TAG issues: > uniform resource version info and access of resource metadata > > ... > > In other words, the point that I'm trying to make is that if we all use > our _own_ ways to give references to our metadata (that's what we're doing > today), we face great difficulties in practise. You use "Up-to-date:", I > use "Version-controlled-resource:", Zaphney uses element <meta> in the > content, etc. If there was a clear, W3C-endorsed recommendation about > which policy to follow, making SW/WS applications would simplify a great > deal (a uniform reference to "all" metadata declared by a resource, i.e., > a single access point where to look metadata from). If WebDAV+DeltaV is > (will be) such policy, it would be nice if it was clearly stated > somewhere. Well. HTTP is an RFC published by the IETF. So are WebDAV and DeltaV (versioning). How can it get more "official"? > ... -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 10:17:03 UTC