> Meta-data is ok, although I would have preferred referring to these as > just "tags"
I try to stay away from this, as we have a field (even traditionally) called TAG in the header. I think a second "tag" causes at least light confusion ;) > since this part of the message is not necessarily going to > be "data about data". It could be just a well-structured part of the > entire message and may carry data no different then the rest of the > message other than formatting. > > If you go with meta-data, please note that the correct > spelling is with > a hyphen. The word "Metadata" (one word and with no hyphen) > appears to > be trademarked. > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metadata oops... thanks for spotting this! Rainer
