- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:06:04 -0500
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: "SWBPD list" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
> From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) [mailto:A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk] > > I think that, because no element with the id attribute value > "me" is actually present in the document, then current > specifications [3,4] do not allow any conclusions about the > nature of <#me> to be drawn from the content-type of the document. I don't think that's quite correct. The WebArch makes no requirement that the fragment identifier actually exist in the retrieved document. The dependency is on whether a *representation* exists when the primary resource is dereferenced. From WebArch sec 3.2.1: [[ The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of representations that might result from a retrieval action on the primary resource. The fragment's format and resolution are therefore dependent on the type of a potentially retrieved representation, even though such a retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced. If no such representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are considered unknown and, effectively, unconstrained. ]] Thus, my interpretation of the WebArch is that if http://example.org/foo returns application/xhtml+xml, then RFC3236 applies, which states: ". . . fragment identifiers for XHTML documents designate the element with the corresponding ID attribute value". If no such element exists, then http://example.org/foo#me identifies a non-existent element. The fact that no such element actually exists does not change the fact that that is what the URI identifies. > . . . > Please note my position given at [7]: 'I support publication > of this document as a Working Draft'. I do not think the > publication of RDF/A as Working Draft should be delayed > because of this particular discussion thread. I agree. I think the warning that Ben has added is adequate. David Booth > > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#media-type-fragid > [4] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt > [5] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0152.html > [6] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0153.html > [7] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0113.html
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:09:48 UTC