- From: Rice, Ed (ProCurve) <ed.rice@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:23:09 -0800
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Roy/TAG, Some thoughts on the latest Authoritative Metadata paper at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060307 1 - In Section 2 you state "For Web architecture, a design choice has been made that metadata received in an encapsulating container MUST be considered authoritative.." Question: Is this a 'design choice' or a 'determination'? A design choice seems to leave it open to more interpretation than a TAG determination.. 2 - 3.3 external reference metadata is least authoritative. Question: In deference to most html, doc types I would agree. Is the same true however to xml? Is the WSDL least authoritative in regards to a SOAP message? I believe by definition the WSDL is THE authoritative source as to the format of the doc when it comes to web services (please correct me if I'm wrong). Clearly in this instance the WSDL would specify xml, but the element structure/types within the xml are also defined in the meta data of the WSDL. I would also think the same applies to an xml/xsd relationship where the xsd is the authoritative source regarding the structure of the xml? The first item can clearly be dropped into the 'nit' bucket, the 2nd item I'd like to hear your thoughts on.. -Ed
Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 20:23:22 UTC