- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:55:16 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: RDFa Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote: > Would it be possible to ask one of the TAG members a text that would satisfy them? I would hate to spend our time on wording when we have our hands full with other things... Sounds like a good idea, because the text/html media type registration specifically says: For documents labeled as text/html, the fragment identifier designates the correspondingly named element; any element may be named with the "id" attribute, and A, APPLET, FRAME, IFRAME, IMG and MAP elements may be named with a "name" attribute. and we don't use @id or @name. We do however allow authors to use URI-references in @href @src @about and @resource, and any of those URI-references may include a "fragment". Thus, RDFa allows authors to make RDF statements about URIs which may contain a fragment, but does not provide a way for authors to use fragment identifiers within the media type text/html. Due to this, I know I'd personally struggle to write text on this subject since RDFa doesn't use fragids, and prior to a dereferencing attempt URIs are opaque. > I guess Jonathan would be the best candidate. If we agree, I am also happy to contact him. Agree (from me), I believe Jonathan has this as action-502 on the tag. Best, Nathan > Ivan > > On Feb 8, 2011, at 02:23 , RDFa Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/84 >> >> Raised by: Manu Sporny >> On product: LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1 >> >> This is very informal, a formal request will come in a few weeks, but we need to start discussing this before the 2nd Last Call for RDFa Core goes out. >> >> Basically the TAG wants to ask the RDFa WG not to fix the RDFa fragid problem, but to document it. >> >> That is, somewhere in one of your rec-track (not necessarily 'normative') documents, there should be an explanation of the issue (fragid use implicitly encouraged by RDFa specs, but not described in any media type registration), as a sort of warning and disclaimer. Not to tell people don't do it, but to alert everyone that there's an issue with the specs. >> >> Then maybe someone later can come along later and clean things up by fixing 3986, AWWW, the registrations, or something else. >> >> The goal is for it to be possible to start with RFC 3986 and find through a sequence of normative documents some statement of what the fragid means. In the case of an important RDFa practice this isn't possible - you look at the text/html or application/xhtml+xml media type registration, and they have stories about fragids that don't include the RDFa use. >> >> >> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 09:56:08 UTC