- From: David (Standards) Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 12:22:36 -0700
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Chairs <chairs@w3.org>, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, Denis Ah-Kang <denis@w3.org>, Antonio Olmo Titos <antonio@w3.org>
We have a similar issue in that DASH needs a URI to refer to the ‘kind’ table in HTML. A current proposal is again to use the section URI: • The W3C HTML5 specification of track 'kind', as identified by the schemeURI [[TBD? https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#the-track-element]] > On May 10, 2016, at 2:11 , Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > > On 2016/05/10 01:37, Robert Sanderson wrote: > >> In the Web Annotation model we also refer to W3C specifications' URIs as a >> means of identifying the URI fragment rules that they maintain. >> For example, we currently recommend the URI " >> http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/" as a way to say "this fragment conforms >> to the rules of the media fragments specification". >> You can see the table here: >> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#fragment-selector >> >> I believe that this would also fall under the change to use https rather >> than http URIs, correct? >> >> As we intend to go to CR in the next few weeks, would the recommendation be >> to change to https now in advance? > > To me, this usage feels close to namespaces in functionality, so it may be worth discussing whether this can be treated the same way. > > Regards, Martin. > David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2016 19:23:07 UTC