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

Re: [apps-discuss] "Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions"

From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Message-id: <01OIHUXXAVUE0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:

> > To be more explicit (and provide additional URLs):
> >
> >    http://www.w3.org/TR/fragid-best-practices/ is now (as of last week) a
> > W3C "First Public Working Draft" as the first step of the "Recommendation"
> > track at W3C.
> > The W3C TAG plan for moving this to Recommendation is
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids.html
> >
> > (a) comments on the document itself should be sent to www-tag@w3.org.
> > Please note that the latest 'editor draft' is
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids.
> >
> > (b) it is likely too late to affect draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs
> >
> > (c) Perhaps a reference to it from
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs (as
> > an informative source of considerations an expert reviewer might take into
> > account) would be in order.
> >
> >
> Is there any objection from the WG to making a reference to this in the
> suffix-regs document?  (Perhaps before we go there: Is that first
> w3.orgURI going to be a permanent URI to which we could make
> reference?)

I certainly have no objection, but I also think this doesn't have much value.
As I've pointed out several times now, the mandate of this document is to seed
the registry. Nothing more. As such, it seems, well, unlikely that people will
look in it for guidance as to how to define fragment identifiers.

The timing here is really unfortunate because this really belongs in the media
types registry document, but IMO adding such a reference there would require
reopening the document and probably issuing a second last call. And that's too
much, especially since, if past history is any indication the place people
will look for this material is in existing registrations they find in
the registry.

So perhaps the thing to do is clean up the fragment id information in
some existing registrations. Just a thought.

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 17:06:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:16 UTC