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

Re: Generic processing of Fragment IDs in RFC 3023bis

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:27:05 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTikUEJ8WE8RM1kLJYeUZ4S2=3adai5ZSY4tXq=i2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Alan Ruttenberg
<alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote:
>> If rdf:ID is defined as having uniqueness constraints then it is surely broken for
>> RDF as the same thing can of course be referred to in lots of of places
>> in the file, with exactly the same syntax.
>
> Well... no.
> You have to use rdf:about the other times.

FWIW, I consider it bad practice to use rdf:ID because of this reason.
There's no reason to not use rdf:about in all cases.
-Alan

> -Alan
>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>>> [...] The RDF/XML DTD
>>>> (http://www.w3.org/XML/9710rdf-dtd/rdf.dtd) gives the rdf:ID attribute
>>>> type ID, and the XML specs (including xml:id and Xpointer) do their
>>>> very best to ensure that attributes with type ID are as much as
>>>> possible the same as xml:id. The RDF/XML spec also makes rdf:ID very
>>>> similar to xml:id - same syntactic and uniqueness constraints. So it
>>>> seemed highly likely to me that rdf:ID defines fragids the same way
>>>> that xml:id does.
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 11 October 2010 13:27:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:28 GMT