W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Re: 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]

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:55:16 +0000
Message-ID: <4D511304.1030201@webr3.org>
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.



> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:24 UTC