>
> Siggy,
>
> If I understand your mails correctly, you are unhappy about any syntax for
> qualified DC which requires more than one line in HTML in order to express a
> single instance of a DC element. You are arguing that the proposed use of
You don't understand what I'm saying, or I'm not expressing myself clear
enough.
> Relation Type breaks a previously unified approach which did not require
> multi-line entries in HTML. To demonstrate the validity of this assertion,
Yes it does Relation Type does that. But what we are up to in DC is
specifying what I would like to call compact form, things that are
expressable in that old dot-format.
This does say that I don't think we should develop the semantics for
metadata in extended form. I just thought that we were documenting the
compact form currently.
> please could you post to the list the single-line form of the Creator
> element, complete with some properties, eg name and address.
Don't be silly! I know those problems better than you. I write software
parsing that ugly stuff...
Could you, please, tell me why Relation need the subelement identifier,
when the basic RFC-1 says that that is what unqualified Relation
should contain (sorry Stu, we still need that word).
Siggy
|