- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 15:37:26 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
The document looks really good. I'm quite encouraged. There was one thing that I read that surprised me though, section 1.4.1; "ConegFragment: Authors SHOULD NOT use HTTP content negotiation for different media types that do not share the same fragment identifier semantics." For some resources, it may very well be important to maintain a consistent fragment identifier syntax. But for most others, it isn't a concern, and the value of using content negotiation for differing formats could easily outweigh it. I also don't consider this an architectural issue, though I expect that DanC and TimBL probably do, due to the different definition of URI (from RFC 1738) that they often use, including in their work on RDF (as Roy pointed out). But my suggestion would be to remove it from the document, or at the very least, tone it down to a "you should consider this" level. Thanks. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2002 15:26:24 UTC