I have lost sight of the requirements; what is metadata setting out to achieve that I should evaluate XML as a solution against?
My engineering instinct is always to reuse an existing technology if it is good enough, not too simple and not too complex for the task in hand. XML seems to be being considered on the too complex end of the spectrum but what is it setting out to do? Strict subsets of existing technologies are also fine by me but bending it a bit to suit I am dead against. And does XML need refining as a label for a technology? is there v1.13 and rev2.3 etc etc . Tom Petch +(44) 192 575 3018 -----Original Message----- From: Chris Lonvick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 14 January 2004 16:46 Subject: Thoughts on Meta-Data >Hi Folks, > >(Just stirring the pot; please respond and keep this discussion going. :) > >I've seen the following proposals for the Meta-Data field: > >Use strict XML such as: > <cookie msgno="123" encoding="USASCII" /> > >Use loose rules so the information can be easily converted to XML (if >one wishes) such as: > <cookie msgno=123 encoding=USASCII> > >Define the format and delimiters with little regard to any conversion to >XML, such as: > [cookie msgno=123 encoding=USASCII] > >Please take the time to state your preference and your reasons. > > >We also need to have a bit of a discussion on "How are the meta-data >attributes defined?". We need to have two things nailed down in this area >before we can progress syslog-protocol. >1) What attributes are going to be defined in syslog-protocol. >2) How can others define additional attributes in the future. > >In (1), Rainer has given some examples in his notes. This group will need >to agree upon them and get them into the syslog-protocol document. > >In (2), we will need to define the name-space and give instructions to >IANA on what has been defined, and how new attributes will be defined and >standardized in the future. One method is to force non-IETF attributes to >prepend attribute names with a known tag, such as "vend-abcdef" for >"vendor defined" attributes. Another possibility is to offer no such >guidance. This would mean that all non-IETF-defined attributes are free >to be used by anyone in any manner. Speaking personally, this has a >certain attraction since syslog is historically a free-form text format. >:-) This could however cause some problems in the future. For example, >Group A could start using an attribute of "counter-1" with a starting >value of "0". Group B could independently use an attribute of the same >name with a starting value of "1". The two groups would then have to come >to some agreement and perhaps write an RFC to define the attribute and the >starting value. > > >Please send your thoughts to the list on these things. > >Thanks, >Chris >
