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

RE: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:06:04 -0500
Message-ID: <A5EEF5A4F0F0FD4DBA33093A0B075590097B6806@tayexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Cc: "SWBPD list" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>

> From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) [mailto:A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk] 
> I think that, because no element with the id attribute value 
> "me" is actually present in the document, then current 
> specifications [3,4] do not allow any conclusions about the 
> nature of <#me> to be drawn from the content-type of the document.

I don't think that's quite correct.  The WebArch makes no requirement
that the fragment identifier actually exist in the retrieved document.
The dependency is on whether a *representation* exists when the primary
resource is dereferenced.  From WebArch sec 3.2.1:
The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of
representations that might result from a retrieval action on the primary
resource. The fragment's format and resolution are therefore dependent
on the type of a potentially retrieved representation, even though such
a retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced. If no such
representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are considered
unknown and, effectively, unconstrained.

Thus, my interpretation of the WebArch is that if http://example.org/foo
returns application/xhtml+xml, then RFC3236 applies, which states: 

	". . . fragment identifiers for XHTML documents designate 
	the element with the corresponding ID attribute value".  

If no such element exists, then http://example.org/foo#me identifies a
non-existent element.  The fact that no such element actually exists
does not change the fact that that is what the URI identifies.  

> . . .
> Please note my position given at [7]: 'I support publication 
> of this document as a Working Draft'. I do not think the 
> publication of RDF/A as Working Draft should be delayed 
> because of this particular discussion thread.

I agree.  I think the warning that Ben has added is adequate.

David Booth

> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#media-type-fragid
> [4] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt
> [5] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0152.html
> [6] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0153.html
> [7] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0113.html
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:09:45 UTC

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