Re: [web-annotation] Is fixing the list of fragment identifiers a good idea?

+1

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:23 AM, BillKasdorf 
<notifications@github.com>
wrote:

>  +1
>
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:notifications@github.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 7:02 AM
> To: w3c/web-annotation
> Subject: [web-annotation] Is fixing the list of fragment identifiers
 a
> good idea? (#40)
>
>
> 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 out of date very quickly and that would require updates of the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<https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/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.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/40>.
>
> —
> 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_40-23issuecomment-2D115274690&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=5iKhJnAEaeL1dVrXZhwfmgnG7bY50SAWkTQe1YdvY48&s=nRk8wE2XKSOl2dUjXrgd6gOxYnYS6wvV3B4hJ8uv2qs&e=>
> .
>


-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by jjett
See 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/40#issuecomment-115277804

Received on Thursday, 25 June 2015 14:35:23 UTC