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

(There is a certain mess on where to have the discussion, github or 
mailing list. For the good order I copy Benjamin's comment here, 
originally [sent to the mailing 
list](http://www.w3.org/mid/CAE3H5FKtmz-dvuSOWrxztmFqWxKRs=eLOLR4w2B-gj5hr2P24Q@mail.gmail.com))

From: Benjamin Young 

Sorry to weigh in late on this...was out last week.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Ivan Herman via GitHub 
<sysbot+gh@w3.org> wrote:
> 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.

In what way does the spec limit the fragment selectors available? To 
me the prose reads pretty open handedly, but the list following 
doesn't state that it's non-normative or just there for examples.

For instance:
"The Web Annotation model defines a fragment-based Selector 
(oa:FragmentSelector) which allows both existing and future fragment 
specifications to be used to describe the segment of interest."

It seems that `dcterms:conformsTo` is included precisely to allow 
future fragment identifiers to be used as values of 
`oa:FragmentSelector`. It's even OK (though not recommended) for the 
URL stored as the target to include the fragement--in which case it 
would fall back to the URI spec, which in turn states that media type 
registrations (done at IANA) are the source of the meaning of 
fragments.

Perhaps the main action is to fix the text above the list, so it's 
clearly non-normative or just by way of example?

The prose doesn't seem to trip up my using RFC350349234 and it's new 
brain region fragment identifier. ;)

Thoughts?

-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by iherman
See 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/40#issuecomment-117231361

Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2015 15:36:43 UTC