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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:20 GMT