Am 06.07.98 schrieb apharris # burrito.onshore.com ... Moin Adam!
APH> > APH> * Source APH> I thought it was a nice way to point to upstream location of the doc, APH> for instance, the sunsite location for Linux FAQs. Ok, maybe. Marcus? APH> > APH> * Relation.IsFormatOf APH> Yes. A converted file has Relation.IsFormatOf the original document. Ok. APH> See Marcus' reason why this is not true and document "type" and APH> document "subject" are not necessarily related. Anything we can do to APH> keep the subject tree shallow is good, too, IMHO. Well, I haven#t see any real argument, why we need type. For the user there will be no difference. I vote to remove type. APH> > APH> * Rights APH> > We don#t need that -> <foo>/copyright. APH> That's true, we don't *need* it; it's optional. OTOH, for instance on APH> a DDP site or whatnot, knowing the rights would be a good thing. But how should Rights work? Should the maintainer add the copyright text ifself? APH> > Too big. The title should fit in one line of a WWW browser or a screen. APH> > I would suggest <= 60. APH> Hmm. One line is generally 75 characters, i.e., in email. That's APH> pretty close to 80. A title should be very short. Have a look at book titles (< 20 chars). APH> You are correct; I'll lower it to 512. Ok. APH> > <= 100 should be enough. APH> APH> Well consider that an individual name in RFC 822 format (i.e., "Adam APH> P. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" can easily be 70 to APH> 80 characters. So this would allow 3 authors around 65 chars each. But in the standard you said, that we should add more than one person with this method: Creator: bla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Creator: bla2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cu, Marco -- Uni: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fido: 2:240/5202.15 Mailbox: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
