W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2008

Re: bbc-programmes.dyndns.org

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:47:46 +0100
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Message-Id: <F6B21648-22AD-4A97-805D-CBA0E0D59C9F@cyganiak.de>
To: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>

On 22 Jun 2008, at 11:52, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
>> I think it would be best to implement the mechanism described here:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#hashuri
>> This would mean:
>> <b00b07kw#episode> is the thing
>> <b00b07kw.rdf> is the RDF variant
>> <b00b07kw.html> is the HTML variant
>> <b00b07kw> is a generic, content-negotiated document; it serves the  
>> right variant directly, without any redirect, and gives the URI of  
>> the selected variant in the Content-Location header.
> I suppose it's not a popular view anymore because that document has  
> an official status now, but there's still the problem with #episode  
> denoting an element in the HTML variant.

We discussed this quite a bit with the TAG before finalizing the Cool  
URIs document, and the TAG insisted it's the right thing to do.

> Either you do have an element with that ID there, then #episode  
> denotes both a thing and an HTML element.

Which is bad and should be avoided. Don't put an id="episode" into the  

> Or you don't have it, then this would be regarded as broken HTML.

Well, not really. The HTML is not broken, it's perfectly fine. The  
perceived issue is that *the RDF* references a fragment that is not  
defined *in the HTML*.

> Maybe that's just a theoretical issue which can simply be ignored  
> for pragmatism.

I think so. Although some of the relevant specs (e.g. the URI RFC and  
the HTML MIME type registration) might benefit from some clarifications.


> Simon
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2008 13:48:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:50 UTC