W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [web-annotation] Dropping type from ... what?

From: Jacob via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:47:40 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-135436984-1440683260-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
-1 from me for the reasons that Stian has mentioned.

I strongly believe that we're conflating file object types with 
content
types here. .jpg, .tif, .svg, etc. can just as easily contain text as
images, and similarly .html, .pdf, .docx, etc. can just as easily 
contain
images as text.

The inclusion of dctype (or some equivalent) is going to be an 
invaluable
indicator of annotator intent in cases where specifiers fail to be
resolvable and only the entire source document can be rendered to the 
end
user. Reserving a cue for them, that the annotation body is intended 
to
target the video and not the entire html document is likely to be our 
best
bet for a graceful failure, without which it may become difficult to 
figure
out what portion of the document the annotation body was intended to 
remark
upon.

Regards,

Jacob



_____________________________________________________
Jacob Jett
Research Assistant
Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
(217) 244-2164
jjett2@illinois.edu

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Doug Schepers 
<notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> I like Tim's suggestion to use MIME types instead of dctypes, for a 
few
> reasons:
>
>    - It prevents the duplication of information (MIME types in the
>    headers, and dctypes in the annotation); duplication of 
information,
>    especially when it can get out of sync, it dangerous; as Tim 
described, a
>    mismatched dctype could easily be chosen
>    - It reuses a well-known and predictable mechanism that is 
universal
>    to the Web and the Internet, rather than an RDF/LD-specific 
mechanism
>    - It helps with direct processing (again, as Tim said).
>
> If content negotiation is necessary, we could perhaps allow multiple
> values; this is going to be set by the UA (usually the client) 
anyway, not
> the user, so it can easily establish the correct MIME type when the
> resource is inserted.
>
> I would go farther than Tim, and suggest that dctype not be included
 in
> the spec; if others want to use it, or any other custom property, 
they are
> free to do so, but having it in the spec encourages its use, which I
> suspect is a bad pattern.
>
> Stian mentions the case of a YouTube video, and makes the claim that
 it's
> a video, not an HTML page; but that's not correct, that URL he 
provided
> points to an HTML page that contains a video, and we shouldn't stray
 from
> the Web in this abstracted way. We cannot hope for interoperability 
in that
> behavior, unless the UA forces the user to select the dctype (how 
would the
> user choose?), or unless we somehow mandate that UAs consistently 
chooses
> the media dctype when presented with mixed-MIME-type resources (like
 HTML
> pages with videos or images) and always. I simply don't see how we 
can
> realistically use dctypes in a helpful way, while MIME types are 
clearly
> and pragmatically useful.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_web-2Dannotation_issues_67-23issuecomment-2D135261833&d=AwMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=dEy6JirabkmExLuyxlI6mVnxscG6k6McVWVaF2WPyrE&s=-5UlAO55BNaEJEBG-EeW9pcNG2qNLfIwG9Cc7CMAecw&e=>
> .
>


-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by jjett
See 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/67#issuecomment-135436984
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2015 13:47:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:39 UTC