W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2012

Re: TAG ACTION-23: URIs for XML Schema datatypes

From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:03:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGnGFMLLYUnaJf47EzAUahrDhaZvSS2i6uZm5Mf6KB1J=zjMew@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
[cc: schema-comments removed]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
...
>  1) Because if we added such anchors they would be present in only one
>    of two content-negotiable representations retrievable from the
>    namespace URI, contra AWWW's statement that
>
>  "representation providers must not use content negotiation to
>   serve representation formats that have inconsistent fragment
>   identifier semantics" [5]
...

AWWW 3.2 says that if a fragid is defined in one variant and not
another this is OK. That is, one of the variants is merely incomplete,
not inconsistent.

[[
The third case is not a server management error. It is a means by
which the Web can grow. Because the Web is a distributed system in
which formats and agents are deployed in a non-uniform manner, Web
architecture does not constrain authors to only use "lowest common
denominator" formats. Content authors may take advantage of new data
formats while still ensuring reasonable backward-compatibility for
agents that do not yet implement them.
]]

Well, the prose is not a perfect match to this situation, but I have
always interpreted it to cover situations like the one we're
hypothesizing, where the HTML variant defines a fragid (via RDFa) and
the XML variant doesn't. RDFa is a "new data format" not supported by
Schema.

Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 14:04:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:45 GMT