- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:22:52 +0200
- To: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>, raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr
- Cc: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:27:19 +0200, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl> wrote: >> 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, > > NOT according to you. It is a valid URI fragment. > >>> 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 ;) > > I'm all for continuing the discussion, at least all the summer and then > I wonder how should we move forward: Would a vote be useful? That depends on what the vote is on. The core question might be phrased as "When encountering a name-value pair that is not specified by MF 1.0, what should implementations do?" The two options on the table are (1) ignore the entire fragment, as if it were not present at all or (2) ignore only that name-value pair and continue processing the others. I would prefer if the decision was on such a principal level, and that the editor(s) then implement the decision by changing the syntax and processing sections to be consistent. Alternatively, the vote could be between two competing changes to make the spec consistent, but that inevitably means that someone has to do a lot of spec editing that gets voted down and is wasted. -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 15:23:31 UTC