- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:58:16 -0500
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>
- Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "SWBPD list" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] > > On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 13:02 -0500, Ben Adida wrote: > > Continuing on this point, I guess that implies the following thing: > > > > If http://example.com/foo resolves to an XHTML document, > > then http://example.com/foo#bar can only be an information resource. > > I don't believe that's the case. What suggests that it is? I think Ben may have been a bit imprecise above. According to my read of the WebArch and httpRange-14 decision, if http://example.com/foo resolves to an XHTML document, then the resource that http://example.com/foo#bar identifies *is* a location within an HTML document. AFAIK this may not preclude it from *also* being a member of some other class. More explanation in my reply to Jeremy: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Feb/0005. html David Booth
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2006 17:58:31 UTC