Approved TAG finding: Authoritative Metadata
|
View:
New views
3 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
Approved TAG finding: Authoritative Metadata
by Vincent Quint
::
Rate this Message:
All, The W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) has approved yesterday the finding Authoritative Metadata: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060412 This is an update to the previously approved finding of 25 February 2004. Additional TAG findings, both approved and in draft state, are also available at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings Abstract: In Web architecture, communication between agents consists of exchanging messages with predefined syntax and semantics: a shared expectation of how each message's control data and payload (representation data and metadata) will be interpreted by the recipient. When supported by the communication protocol, the Web architecture uses representation metadata to indicate the sender's intentions regarding how the recipient should interpret the representation data. For example, HTTP and MIME use the value\ of the "Content-Type" header field to indicate the Internet media type of the representation, which influences the dispatching of handlers and security-related decisions made by recipients of the message. In this finding, we review the architectural design choice that metadata provided in an encapsulating container, such as the metadata provided in the header fields of a received message, be considered authoritative. We examine why recipient behavior that fails to respect authoritative metadata can be harmful and under what conditions such behavior is allowed. Finally, we consider how specification authors and implementers should incorporate these design constraints into their work. -------------- Vincent Quint INRIA Rhône-Alpes INRIA ZIRST e-mail: Vincent.Quint@... 655 avenue de l'Europe Tel.: +33 4 76 61 53 62 Montbonnot Fax: +33 4 76 61 52 07 38334 Saint Ismier Cedex France |
|
|
Re: Approved TAG finding: Authoritative Metadata
by Chris Lilley
::
Rate this Message:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2006, 4:55:40 PM, Vincent wrote: VQ> All, VQ> The W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) has approved yesterday the finding VQ> Authoritative Metadata: VQ> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060412 VQ> This is an update to the previously approved finding of 25 February 2004. I see that it says: The TAG is working with the authors of [RFC3023] to revise section 7.1 of that RFC, which suggests behavior regarding character encoding metadata that is inconsistent with this finding. The current state of that work is now available and I would be glad of comments. In particular, I believe that it now correctly reflects the TAG findings in this area. Here is a summary of the changes compared to the previous (now expired) Internet Draft: TAG finding ----------- I have incorporated the wording about the charset param from the TAG finding. I used the language from the TAG finding for application/xml charset, and for text/xml charset I strengthened the wording to say that although optional, it MUST be used unless the encoding is us-ascii. Does that sound right? I also edited the summary to reflect these changes regarding charset, and added the TAG finding to the references. I further noted (as a consequence of the TAG wording about the charset "where reliably known and if it agrees with the encoding declaration") that missing out the encoding declaration should not be done. The previous wording noted that this was sometimes done, and seemed to slightly condone it. I think it is in practice rare to omit it, and it should not be encouraged (unless the encoding is, in fact, UTF-8 or UTF-16). For application/xml, in the absence of a charset, current implementations do what the spec now says - rely on the XML encoding declaration, so its fine. XPointer and its registry ------------------------- I added a mention of the registry of xpointer schemes, and added the registry itself to the references section. I also changed "schemes" to "registered schemes' now that there is a registry, and added a note that unregistered schemes SHOULD NOT be used. Miscellaneous clarification --------------------------- Where -01 said An XML document labeled as text/xml or application/xml might contain namespace declarations, stylesheet-linking processing instructions (PIs), schema information, or other declarations that might be used to suggest how the document is to be processed. For example, a document might have the XHTML namespace and a reference to a CSS stylesheet. Such a document might be handled by applications that would use this information to dispatch the document for appropriate processing. I added "or as +xml" to be clearer. Still to do : SOAP and WebDAV use of text/xml ------------------------------- Not clear what to say here; text/xml is deprecated and we don't want to annoy them? Do SOAP and WebDAV have other Media Types that they are transitioning towards? Please have a look at the current work in progress: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-02.html http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-02.xml http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-02.txt See also the directory http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/ for diffs of the xml (wrt -01.xml) and the html (wrt -01.html). The -01 versions are in the same directory, for convenience and so I can make diffs. The markup used is that of RFC2629; the DTD for it is in the same directory. I used the tool at http://xml.resource.org/ to convert the XML to the HTML and text forms. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@... Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG |
|
|
|
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
