- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:58:51 +1000
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> (jbrewer@w3.org)" <jbrewer@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 12:41 -0700, Mark Watson wrote: >> Hi Silvia, >> >> >> I like your proposed reply, except this last part. >> >> On Jun 5, 2011, at 10:34 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> > There will be no URN to specify these names. >> >> >> Specifying a URN is no more than giving a permanent machine-readable >> name to the list of values (not, it's not a URN for each individual >> value). It has not cost (URNs are an infinite resource) and has value >> in that it enables the kinds we specify to be referred to in other >> protocols, specifically DASH. > > I think that Silvia meant to say there is no need for a URN for the > HTML5 track kinds. Those will be included in the HTML5 specification. Indeed. :-) Specifically, according to RFC3305 contemporary view, there is no need to specify a URN when there are well defined URIs available. They identify the objects sufficiently. Interestingly also, the set or registered URN schemes at IANA does not include a W3C namespace, see http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xml . It's probably because the W3C has a well defined URI naming scheme. So, referencing the HTML5 specification and the section therein where the kind names are defined should be sufficient. Best Regards, Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 21:59:46 UTC