- From: Noah Mendelsohn <noah@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:00:21 -0400
- To: public-media-fragment@w3.org
- CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
During the course of some TAG discussion of the Media Fragments URI 1.0 (basic) Proposed Recommendation [1], I was confused and concerned by some of the text in section 3.1. Quoting the text in question: ================== A further requirement put on a URI fragment is that the media type of the retrieved fragment should be the same as the media type of the primary resource. ================== I read this as attempting to restate a constraint from RFC 3986 on the resolution of fragment identifiers, and there is of course no such constraint. During informal discussions with some TAG members who have followed your work more closely than I have, it was suggested that your intention was only to introduce a constraint that you choose to impose for your particular purposes. If so, I suggest an editorial clarification, perhaps along the lines of: ================== This specification imposes a further constraint, which is that the media type of the retrieved fragment should be the same as the media type of the primary resource. ================== (I might also quibble with the use of the word "retrieved" in this context; I presume that a given fragment identifies, e.g., a given frame in a video regardless of whether a retrieval has been done. This is important for uses like RDF, in which we might want to make a statement about a video frame which has not necessarily ever been retrieved by anyone.) Anyway, I think that the corrections I'm suggesting are editorial in nature, and I hope you will consider making them before going to Recommendation. Please note that, although TAG members were helpful to me in understanding the issues here, this is a personal comment, and it is not offered on behalf of the TAG, or in my role as TAG chair. Thank you very much. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-media-frags-20120315/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-media-frags-20120315/#URIquery-vs-fragments
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 20:59:18 UTC