- From: SWD Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:50:27 +0000 (GMT)
- To: public-swd-wg@w3.org
ISSUE-22: Questioning reference to IE6 hack http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/22 Raised by: Bernard Horan On product: Recipes In http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#negotiation there is reference to a hack that's required for Internet Explorer browser clients. The paragraph begins as follows: "In recipes 3, 4, 5, and 6 below, RDF/XML is configured as the default response. This is chosen to minimize the impact on deployed Semantic Web applications that do not currently send appropriate 'Accept:' header field values for RDF content. Note that, however, with RDF as the default response, a 'hack' has to be included..." The issue I'd like to raise is two fold: 1) wordsmithing: a) Suggest that there's a new para/section titled something like "Workaround for Internet Explorer". At the moment the details of the hack merge in with the rest of the default behaviour. b) the use of "hack" and "peculiar" is somewhat pejorative! c) the layout of the itemised instructions is confusing to read, as they're broken up by a yellow line of directive 2) ambiguity I think we need to come down on one side of the fence on whether this "hack" should be included. Either (a) we remove from the document any suggestion that the reader should delete the directive and just insert an explanation as to why it's needed; or (b) explain that IE clients will need this directive and include it _commented out_ in the recipes so that implementers may include it. I favour (a).
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 18:50:32 UTC