W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Disclaimer for Authoritative Metadata (ACTION-793)

From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 08:56:37 -0400
Message-Id: <87DB2356-2058-444A-8497-353FCE63140C@la-grange.net>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-tag.w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>

Le 5 avr. 2013 à 18:40, Larry Masinter a écrit :
> that is, all four of the conditions have to hold for sniffing to
> be a good idea to propagate. 

There is a nuance in between "being a good idea" and "being necessary " or "being the most effective for the users".

> While that might apply to hyperlinks and transclusion FROM 
> HTML documents, I don't think it applies to network APIs, 
> applications other than browsers, (SIP? Instant messaging?
> hyperlinks from content other than HTML?).

For example in the feed world [1] "In Stupid HTTP Tricks":

* 6. Sending back things that are not XML (eg, videos). It can help to check Content-Type and Content-Length headers, but sometimes they misidentify RSS as something else (eg, text/plain).

My main issue so far with the document "Authoritative Metadata" [2] is that it is not about "HTTP Content-Type". Check all the "Good Pratice" and "Constraint" lines and there is no reference to Content-Type. "Content-Type" is an example in the document.

So it doesn't seem a good idea to focus on this.


With regards to all "Good Practice" statements, it might be better (before starting to say what is wrong) 

* to list the circumstances when this good practice breaks 
* how, once deployed in a social environment, is it broken
* what are the difficulties for fixing them
* what/who consumes the data

[1]: http://inessential.com/2013/03/18/brians_stupid_feed_tricks
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20130405.html

Karl Dubost
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2013 12:56:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:55 UTC