W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2011

Fwd: RDFa Core last call comments - "have not yet caught up"

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:59:47 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTin_kr7PXLz3XsT3y-nsAqEKbkSo7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
FYI, here's what I sent to the RDFa WG re my ACTION-509. Their "second
last call" period ended yesterday.

Jonathan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Subject: RDFa Core last call comments - "have not yet caught up"
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org

Re
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdfa-core-20110331/#s_Syntax_overview

The Note in section 2 says:

 However, the media type registrations that govern the meaning of
 fragment identifiers (see section 3.5 of the URI specification
 [RFC3986], [RFC3023], and [RFC2854]) have not yet caught up with this
 practice.

You added this note in response to the TAG's request that you explain
that there is an issue, even if no solution is offered.  Thanks for
doing this.

However, "not yet caught up" sounds too much like a promise.  It
implies that you believe the specs *will* catch up with RDFa.  You
would need some justification for this, such as someone having
volunteered to changing the registrations or RFC 3986. I don't think
you have such justification.

You might just stick with a more factual statement such as

 Unfortunately, this practice is not at present covered by
 the media type registrations that govern the meaning of
 fragment identifiers (see section 3.5 of the URI specification
 [RFC3986], [RFC3023], and [RFC2854]).

This may be sufficient.  "At present" is a bit of a weasel hinting at
possible change but not predicting it.  This wording may leave the
reader wondering what to make of the contradiction - does it mean they
shouldn't use fragids after all because they're out of spec?  I've
been trying to come up with a followon sentence that is reassuring,
without success so far.  You could say for example that you believe
that there is no serious incompatibility and that you *hope* that the
specs will be made consistent in the future.  Or you might say that
you think the specs are wrong and should be ignored, but that
would encourage an anti-specification attitude that could be used
against RDFa itself (and much of what W3C does).

I'm sorry I can't be more helpful right now.  Perhaps the reference to
webarch in the next sentence will be adequate (in some
nonspecific way) and we don't need an additional
sentence saying that these fragids are OK.

We've been talking about media type registrations and fragids a
fair amount in the TAG. This particular topic was taken up at
the 24 March 2011 TAG meeting:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/24-minutes.html
See also
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543

It's a rather painful part of the architecture, and no one likes it,
but it's not obvious how to fix it.

This message has not been vetted with the TAG, so should be taken
as individual communication, but I've done my best to represent what
others in the TAG have said on the subject.

Best
Jonathan
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 13:00:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:35 GMT