- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 10:19:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> I would agree to this analysis: #foo=bar is not a valid MF
> *dimension*. It is, however, a valid media fragment URI, since a media
> fragment URI is given as a URI on a media resource that has a fragment
> specified and we specify fragment through name-value pairs. The
You can only know it's a media resource when you dereference it.
http://www.example.com/map#lat=-16.5&long=-151.7 is a valid Media
Fragment, but it may be a fragment indicating a point in a map (for
example, it might even be something else).
> fragment *dimension* is unknown under the given specification but
> could be user-defined and therefore perfectly valid if both the
> involved UA understands it (e.g. if some UA plugin takes care of it).
>
> So, I actually disagree with the notion that this is no a valid MF URI
> - it is a valid MF URI - it is just not a valid MF dimension.
Needless to say that I disagree ;)
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 14:19:34 UTC