- From: Sarven Capadisli via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:30:12 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
The text is fine as is. Okay to close the issue based on the idea that the current spec doesn't prevent any of this. [ I acknowledge @iherman 's response but with some concern because of how it might play out in the wild. I suspect that HTML namedSection will be the common case for fragments, but this is rather inaccurate since the IRIs in RDFa are within the scope of RFC3987, and that there is no requirement for the IRI with a fragment to have a corresponding HTML `@`id in the document. My inquiry was that perhaps it'd be better to mention this instead of causing divergence in implementations. Which brings me to wonder whether the selection is intentionally flexible, i.e., is it solely about the nodes in HTML+RDFa or resources in HTML+RDFa? What I'm raising is primarily about the latter. ] -- GitHub Notification of comment by csarven Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/295#issuecomment-225001312 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2016 19:30:15 UTC