- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:41:18 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
I'm happy to give Aunt Tillie, who I take to be another victim of your IT department, a place at the table in this discussion. We should enumerate solutions that are accessible to her and evaluate them relative to others. But I want to be clear what problem we're talking about. I don't think anyone is proposing to eliminate in- document metadata, or to eliminate 303. (There exist arguments against in-document metadata, but that's another story.) I'm just suggesting that we look at *alternative* uniform "channels" for providing metadata, because sometimes you can't or don't want to put it in the document (like maybe it's not a document and 303 is not to your taste, or the format doesn't have a place to put metadata, or any of the other 5 or so situations previously discussed). I can see why you might want to look for a solution to Aunt Tillie's non-document non-303 non-# description problem through this discussion. Although I'm not a big fan of 303s, this is an angle I hadn't thought of. A URI manipulation convention such as Alan Ruttenberg's idea from last summer [1] would work for Aunt Tillie since it doesn't require any header or status code magic. Another solution would be a central registry or a set of registries. (I'm not saying these ideas aren't without faults.) What would you suggest? Jonathan [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2007Jul/ 0109.html
Received on Friday, 21 March 2008 00:42:06 UTC