- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:07:10 -0700
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
- Cc: 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>
On 05/10/2016 02:11 AM, Martin J. Dürst 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. If the linked data community wishes to have a discussion on the namespace policy, they can certainly do so. The fact is that we can't change deployed namespaces due to lack of consensus and tooling. In addition, we don't seem to create new ones nowadays anyway. I'm not convinced that linking the two changes together would bring a predictable timed outcome. Philippe
Received on Saturday, 14 May 2016 10:49:15 UTC