Re: SHOULD/MUST fragment identifier definition question

On 10 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 10 December 2012 14:10, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> A question to supporters of SHOULD/MUST:
> 
> This is to be found in the terminology section:
> 
> for MUST:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/d21603d3972a/spec/identity-respec.html#terminology
> [[
> A WebID is a URI with an http or https scheme, which contains a  URI fragment identifier (i.e. a #id ) and which uniquely denotes an Agent (Person, Organization, Group, Device, etc.). The URI without the fragment identifier denotes the WebID Profile page.
> ]]
> should the text contain a MUST there, or is the above strong enough?
> 
> for SHOULD:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/raw-file/http-hash-uri-should/spec/identity-respec.html#terminology
> [[
> A WebID is a URI with an HTTP or HTTPS scheme which uniquely denotes an Agent (Person, Organization, Group, Device, etc.). This URI SHOULD include a fragment identifier (a string after a "#" character).
> ]]
> 
> Does a hash URI require a string after the hash character?
> 
> Facebook for example does not have such a string as you can see here:
> 
>   curl -H "Accept: text/turtle" http://graph.facebook.com/bblfish
> 
> Also is the terminology section the normative one?
> 
> I think http://graph.facebook.com/bblfish# as facebook have is fine?  Any reason that there might be an issue with this?

I don't think there are any issues. It is that the definition seems to outlaw them. So I think this has to be removed from the definition.

> 
> If anything, this might be a best practice for pages that are designed to contain only one subject, as facebook profiles seem to be.
>  
> 
>   Henry
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/