W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > February 2007

[Recipes] Issue: IE6 hack

From: Bernard Horan <Bernard.Horan@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:22:26 +0000
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <45D19162.9030906@sun.com>

All

this is in response to my action
http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-swd-minutes.html#action12

in http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#negotiation there is reference 
to a hack that's required for Internet Explorer browser clients. The 
paragraph begins as follows:

"In recipes 3, 4, 5, and 6 below, RDF/XML is configured as the default 
response. This is chosen to minimize the impact on deployed Semantic Web 
applications that do not currently send appropriate 'Accept:' header 
field values for RDF content. Note that, however, with RDF as the 
default response, a 'hack' has to be included..."

The issue I'd like to raise is two fold:

1) wordsmithing:

a) Suggest that there's a new para/section titled something like 
"Workaround for Internet Explorer". At the moment the details of the 
hack merge in with the rest of the default behaviour.

b) the use of "hack" and "peculiar" is somewhat pejorative!

c) the layout of the itemised instructions is confusing to read, as 
they're broken up by a yellow line of directive


2) ambiguity
I think we need to come down on one side of the fence on whether this 
"hack" should be included. Either (a) we remove from the document any 
suggestion that the reader should delete the directive and just insert 
an explanation as to why it's needed; or (b) explain that IE clients 
will need this directive and include it _commented out_ in the recipes 
so that implementers may include it. I favour (a).

cheers

Bernard
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 10:22:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:28 GMT