- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:02:20 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
iherman has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation: == Is fixing the list of fragment identifiers a good idea? == I was re-reading the [fragment selector](http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#h4_fragment-selector) section in the model document; my reading is that the Recommendation would fix the fragment selectors that a conforming implementation can use. I think this is a very bad idea. Fragment identifiers are defined all the time; by restricting the list to the fragment identifiers we know about at the time of publishing the specification we will incur the danger of being out of date very quickly and that would require updates of the Recommendation. At this moment we are already missing some on the list, like: * fragment identifiers for CSV files, defined by rfc7111 (this is the open #26 issue on our issue list) * fragment identifiers for EPUB files, called [CFI](http://www.idpf.org/epub/linking/cfi/epub-cfi.html) * fragment identifiers for PDF, defined in the [PDF mime type registration](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3778#section-3) And these are only a few examples. Within W3C, actually, there is work on, eg., [Web packaging](http://www.w3.org/TR/web-packaging/) that may lead to new [fragment identifiers](http://www.w3.org/TR/web-packaging/#fragment-identifiers) defined for web packaging formats (and the publishing community *may* come up with alternative for this), and we ourselves may define separate fragment identifiers for the RangeFinder API (as a serialization thereof). On long term we will loose. I believe it would be a much better approach to leave this open ended. We should accept fragment identifiers that are officially defined either directly as part of a media type specification (as the one for PDF above) or as separate RFC-s (like rfc7111). I am sure there is a list somewhere maintained by IETF to refer to. See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/40
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2015 11:02:22 UTC