I like having a slim format, but that is just about keeping the MUST
elements and attributes to a minimum.

Anthony, I'd be happy if you would veto this discussion by saying: let's
use these tags and be done with it. Dublin Core is not THAT important
and I hereby retract my vote for using it :D

Bram

On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 03:16 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to