Re: RFD: contents.rdf Spec v0.1

On mercredi, mars 19, 2003, at 15:11 Europe/Paris, Roger Fischer wrote:

>>> 10) We need to have a debate about "article" vs. "document" (or
>>> "page") for the name of the resourcetype across systems.
>>
>> getting into semantic territory here huh
>
> Not sure, where the discussion on this is at the moment.
>
> Bitflux does it like this:
> - page = rendered webpage, defined by an URI
> - document = abstracted content-gatherer which can include several 
> types of
> objects like article, video, file, mediaobject
>   => is most often rendered as one page
> - article = abstract basic textobject which can contain xrefs to other
> objects like images, video, files etc.

Imagine that you wanted to dump all the information from a site and 
check it into CVS or make an archive.  You're probably going to want 
the unaltered "source" for each piece of content.

"Page" is clearly not the right thing.  Is "article" the word for this?

> By "abstract" I mean something without presentation.
>
>>
>>> 11) Do we need an encoding attribute in the XML declaration?
>>
>> dunno
>
> Let's do it the same way as with all XML documents. The default is 
> UTF-8,
> one can use encoding if you want.

Ok, so this means that we don't specify any encoding, right?

--Paul