- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 23:33:32 +0100
- To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Hi, We're due to have a session on mime types and fragids at the F2F next week. Below is the intended agenda and background reading (it looks a lot but is mostly either short sections within larger documents or 'just enough to get the gist'). Cheers, Jeni --- AIMS - make decision on direction we take on RDFa Core (ACTION-509) - agree text for MIME and the Web draft on fragids (ACTION-543) - make decision (again) on direction we take on 3023bis (application/xml) - identify other actions to resolve fragid issues AGENDA 1. Current specifications - URI spec http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#page-24 - AWWW http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#fragid http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#internet-media-type 2. Emerging practice and opportunities a. New XML mime type definition - 3023bis [DRAFT] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-04.html#frag - XPointer framework http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-xptr-framework-20030325/ b. Hashbangs - HTML mime type definition http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt - XHTML mime type definition http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt c. Images and video - media type fragments [DRAFT] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-media-frags-20110317/ - SVG mime type definition [DRAFT?] http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg01153.html d. Semantic web - application/rdf+xml mime type definition http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3870.txt - RDFa core http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdfa-core-20110331/ - Turtle [to be updated by RDF WG] http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/turtle - N3 [submission] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2011/SUBM-n3-20110328/#sec-mediaReg - N-triples http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-testcases-20040210/#ntriples - Manchester OWL Syntax [NOTE] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-owl2-manchester-syntax-20091027/#Appendix:_Internet_Media_Type.2C_File_Extension_and_Macintosh_File_Type 3. Discussion a. Under 3023bis rules, SVG cannot specify support for media type fragments - is this a problem? - should SVG have a non-+xml media type so that it can? - should 3023bis allow +xml media types to support other fragment id syntaxes? b. Under 3023bis rules, any application/xml or +xml document's fragments must indicate XML elements - what fragids can an RDFa XML document use and be consistent with 3023bis? - what fragids can an XHTML document use and be consistent with 3023bis? - should 3023bis allow +xml media types to define fragids that point to things other than XML elements? c. In practice, does it matter what the mime type definitions say? - how do applications work out what fragment identifiers to interpret? - what happens when applications interpret additional fragment identifiers? (eg if an image rendering application applied media type fragments to SVG) - what happens when different applications interpret fragment identifiers differently? (eg if an XML processor interprets #me as an error, RDF processor as a Person) d. What additional guidelines or rewriting is needed - to 3023bis - to RDFa Core - to RDF Concepts? - to AWWW - to URI spec - to 'how to define fragment identifier semantics' - to IETF or W3C processes? 4. Decisions and action assignment OTHER READING - Previous decisions on 3023bis http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/06/08-minutes.html#item01 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0125.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Nov/0078.html - Proposal for mime type fragid section by Jeni (ACTION-543) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0000.html - Summary of issues around 3023bis and impact on RDFa and other specs http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0027.html -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 22:33:58 UTC