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

ISSUE-22: Questioning reference to IE6 hack

From: SWD Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:50:27 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20070214185027.D08B947BA1@mojo.w3.org>


ISSUE-22: Questioning reference to IE6 hack

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/22

Raised by: Bernard Horan
On product: Recipes

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).
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 18:50:32 GMT

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