JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Archives


DC-ARCHITECTURE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE Home

DC-ARCHITECTURE  June 2009

DC-ARCHITECTURE June 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: RFC 2731 vs DC-HTML

From:

"John A. Kunze" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Architecture Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 1 Jun 2009 08:50:43 -0700

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (70 lines)

I think we need to go a little more slowly given the magnitude of change
proposed in these last five days (I'm not quite back from vacation last
week, but this seems worth addressing now).

I don't know how long you've been participating in the DCMI community,
but RFC 2731 [1] was originally intended to reach out to the larger IETF
community.  At the moment, it also offers a rather briefer and simpler
introduction to HTML encoding than DC-HTML [2], which also ends with:

   "This document draws on the existing recommendations for
   encoding Dublin Core metadata in HTML, including ..."

Shouldn't this spec be the first place for DCMI to assert that other
specs are obsolete (assuming that's the case)?

In any case, another approach to reconciling [1] and [2] is to revise the
old RFC and re-issue it under a new number that obsoletes the old RFC.
This might work if [1] has sufficient pedagogical value and isn't too
difficult to update.

-John

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2731
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-html/


--- On Wed, 27 May 2009, Pete Johnston wrote:
> > I recently noticed that <http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-html/>
> > obsoletes RFC 2731 (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2731>), 
> > but readers who aren't aware of that are likely not to find 
> > out, as RFC 2731 has not been obsoleted.
> > 
> > I asked the IESG for advice, and they told me the best way to 
> > handle this is to publish a new RFC, obsoleting RFC 2731, and 
> > stating that maintenance has moved to DCMI.
> > 
> > Here's a proposed draft: 
> >
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-rfc2731bis-latest.html>.
> > 
> > Feedback appreciated,
> 
> I do think this is the message we want to convey, and if the most
> appropriate way of conveying it is to obsolete the RFC, I would support
> this approach.
> 
> If I understand the procedure correctly, the proposed draft text would
> take the form of a new RFC (number to be determined), referring back to
> RFC 2731, and the text of RFC 2731 would remain in place, with the
> addition of an indication that its status was "Historic" and that it had
> been obsoleted by the new doc? Have I got that right, Julian?
> 
> Re the proposed text, I notice it makes a point of mentioning the
> profile attribute as a new requirement. There are some other areas where
> the conventions diverge (e.g. the use of name values like
> "DC.date.created"), but I'm not sure that the new text needs to list
> them all.
> 
> Is there agreement that this is the right approach to take? Are there
> any objections/reasons why we shouldn't take this approach?
> 
> Pete
> ---
> Pete Johnston
> Technical Researcher, Eduserv
> [log in to unmask] 
> +44 (0)1225 474323
> http://www.eduserv.org.uk/research/people/petejohnston/
> http://efoundations.typepad.com/
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager