W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2011

ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1]

From: RDFa Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:23:10 +0000
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PmcIQ-0003IU-DZ@lowblow.w3.org>

ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1]

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/84

Raised by: Manu Sporny
On product: LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1

This is very informal, a formal request will come in a few weeks, but we need to start discussing this before the 2nd Last Call for RDFa Core goes out.

Basically the TAG wants to ask the RDFa WG not to fix the RDFa fragid problem, but to document it.

That is, somewhere in one of your rec-track (not necessarily 'normative') documents, there should be an explanation of the issue (fragid use implicitly encouraged by RDFa specs, but not described in any media type registration), as a sort of warning and disclaimer. Not to tell people don't do it, but to alert everyone that there's an issue with the specs.

Then maybe someone later can come along later and clean things up by fixing 3986, AWWW, the registrations, or something else.

The goal is for it to be possible to start with RFC 3986 and find through a sequence of normative documents some statement of what the fragid means. In the case of an important RDFa practice this isn't possible - you look at the text/html or application/xhtml+xml media type registration, and they have stories about fragids that don't include the RDFa use.
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 01:23:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:51 UTC