W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Fragid semantics and language conneg

From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:50:35 +0000
Message-ID: <4CD176BB.9090305@ninebynine.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: www-tag@w3.org
Jonathan Rees wrote:
> I can't get too worked up about this but I don't like muddles. It
> would be nice to have a straight story before issuing opinions on
> things like 3023bis and fragids in redirects... can anyone think of a
> fix? Looks to me - just off the cuff mind you - like the most
> parsimonious fix is to say that fragids "identify" information
> resources, abstracted over representation, with "representations"
> defined in most cases according to the fragid sections of media type
> specs - that is, reduce it to the previously unsolved problem "what is
> an information resource". E.g. if GET http://example.com/doc yields a
> representation with fragid aa "designating" an HTML element <ee/>,
> then element <ee/> is a "representation" of the secondary resource
> http://example.com/doc#aa .

Neat!  When trying to draft something for RDF [1], we tried to interpret the 
fragid in terms of the conventional "view" notion, which was always going to 
require a bit of artifice and squinting.   Intepreting the view in terms of a 
secondary resource designation seems much cleaner.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-fragID
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 09:25:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:08 UTC