Nils wrote: > * There are a few DC related rfc. However they seem to be > "Informational". I don't know how this would affect metalink > standardization.
I don't think it matters. First, XML itself is not an RFC, and we're using it. Second, we don't necessarily have to say that generators MUST use dublin core for metadata and clients SHOULD interpret it. We could just say in an *informational* section that metadata should use dublin core in the name of interoperability. Generators are free to use whatever metadata format they feel like using, as long as it uses its own namespace URI, and tags are put in the appropriate "extension points" allowed by the metalink RelaxNG schema; but they can't expect other programs to understand it in that case. > * Should there be a lot of DC elements that generators should use (as > opposed to other elements). How would we map the current set of > elements to DC elements? > * Can all of the current elements be easily mapped? Which elements > must stay? I don't have answers to this yet; but note that "all the current elements" in on-the-wild metalink files are using the old namespace URI. I don't think anyone has generated metalink files with the new namespace yet. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
