W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Track kinds

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:58:51 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=y1qz6NUFjChvCAH5==Wa_i_=MMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> (jbrewer@w3.org)" <jbrewer@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 12:41 -0700, Mark Watson wrote:
>> Hi Silvia,
>>
>>
>> I like your proposed reply, except this last part.
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 10:34 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> > There will be no URN to specify these names.
>>
>>
>> Specifying a URN is no more than giving a permanent machine-readable
>> name to the list of values (not, it's not a URN for each individual
>> value). It has not cost (URNs are an infinite resource) and has value
>> in that it enables the kinds we specify to be referred to in other
>> protocols, specifically DASH.
>
> I think that Silvia meant to say there is no need for a URN for the
> HTML5 track kinds. Those will be included in the HTML5 specification.

Indeed. :-)

Specifically, according to RFC3305 contemporary view, there is no need
to specify a URN when there are well defined URIs available. They
identify the objects sufficiently. Interestingly also, the set or
registered URN schemes at IANA does not include a W3C namespace, see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xml .
It's probably because the W3C has a well defined URI naming scheme.
So, referencing the HTML5 specification and the section therein where
the kind names are defined should be sufficient.

Best Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 21:59:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:40 GMT