W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2006

RE: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:58:16 -0500
Message-ID: <A5EEF5A4F0F0FD4DBA33093A0B075590097B6810@tayexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "SWBPD list" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>

> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 13:02 -0500, Ben Adida wrote:
> > Continuing on this point, I guess that implies the following thing:
> > 
> > If http://example.com/foo resolves to an XHTML document, 
> > then http://example.com/foo#bar can only be an information resource.
> I don't believe that's the case. What suggests that it is?

I think Ben may have been a bit imprecise above.  According to my read
of the WebArch and httpRange-14 decision, if http://example.com/foo
resolves to an XHTML document, then the resource that
http://example.com/foo#bar identifies *is* a location within an HTML
document.  AFAIK this may not preclude it from *also* being a member of
some other class.  

More explanation in my reply to Jeremy:

David Booth
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 17:58:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:46 UTC