- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:47:46 +0100
- To: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
On 22 Jun 2008, at 11:52, Simon Reinhardt wrote: >> I think it would be best to implement the mechanism described here: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#hashuri >> This would mean: >> <b00b07kw#episode> is the thing >> <b00b07kw.rdf> is the RDF variant >> <b00b07kw.html> is the HTML variant >> <b00b07kw> is a generic, content-negotiated document; it serves the >> right variant directly, without any redirect, and gives the URI of >> the selected variant in the Content-Location header. > > I suppose it's not a popular view anymore because that document has > an official status now, but there's still the problem with #episode > denoting an element in the HTML variant. We discussed this quite a bit with the TAG before finalizing the Cool URIs document, and the TAG insisted it's the right thing to do. > Either you do have an element with that ID there, then #episode > denotes both a thing and an HTML element. Which is bad and should be avoided. Don't put an id="episode" into the HTML. > Or you don't have it, then this would be regarded as broken HTML. Well, not really. The HTML is not broken, it's perfectly fine. The perceived issue is that *the RDF* references a fragment that is not defined *in the HTML*. > Maybe that's just a theoretical issue which can simply be ignored > for pragmatism. I think so. Although some of the relevant specs (e.g. the URI RFC and the HTML MIME type registration) might benefit from some clarifications. Best, Richard > > > Simon > >
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2008 13:48:25 UTC