- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:46:35 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, 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 Jun 15, 2011, at 17:38 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >> I think there is a real misunderstanding here. >> >> The 3G/MPEG spec. ( at the moment) says that the 'role' names are scoped by a URI that identifies the specification which those names come from. This does, indeed, allow 3G and/or MPEG (or anyone else) to define new names. What they want to do, however, is say that for the common cases, covered by HTML5, please use the HTML5 names, and the identifying URI for that namespace is XXX. >> >> Clearly, since the W3C owns the spec., it looks tidier if the identifying URI is also the W3C's. 3G or MPEG could define a URI >> urn:mpeg:stuff:whatever:w3c:track-kinds >> >> but it might be best if the HTML spec. said "where these names are used in other contexts, the URI urn:w3c:html:track-kinds" identifies this name-set. > > Why not use these URIs: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-iframe-element.html#attr-track-kind > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-iframe-element.html#dom-TrackList-getKind-categories > > What's wrong with using existing URIs? It's not like these concepts > don't have a URI and we need to artificially make up a URI for them... > If that's what the W3C wants to be used as names for these, I don't see a problem. The answer would be then 'yes, we'd like the URIs that refer to the sections be used as the identifying URIs for the name-set'. As names, they will remain valid; one hopes as URLs that they will remain helpful, i.e. de-referencable, though this is not strictly required. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 00:47:49 UTC