- From: Rob Sanderson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:00:22 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
> But... doesn't that leads to interoperability issues. You pick, randomly, one and I pick the other? What is the use case for this? The idea is that the more you specify, the more likely it is that one will continue to work and that clever clients can use the set to be even more precise. For example, if you use just TextPosition, you have no way to tell that the document changed, but it's as precise a way as possible when the document is static. So if there's also a TextQuote selector, then you can use that to either find the selection (even though it's maybe slower or harder), or to verify that the content at the specified position is the same. This is towards robustness of anchors, but clearly not the entire solution. Second use case is if one system implements only TextQuote, then you can use the annotation, whereas if you supplied just a complex RangeSelector of XPathSelectors, that might be more accurate and faster ... but worthless to the simpler implementation of just the Quote pattern. Related to this is if there are new, super awesome selectors that are developed in different communities, it would be good to at least provide one of the selectors from the model for systems outside that community. -- GitHub Notification of comment by azaroth42 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/207#issuecomment-215810505 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 29 April 2016 17:00:26 UTC