- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:50:02 +0000
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- CC: "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>, Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
It is of course conceivable that we are identifying a bug with the web architecture document rather than a bug in our use of URIs. The space of URIs available for non-Information resources seems to be getting smaller and smaller, soon the Semantic Web will be disallowed by the Web Architecture document. Jeremy Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > >> 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 17:55:17 UTC