W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML)

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:27:20 -0600
Cc: "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Message-Id: <11111C08-ED39-11D6-8DD8-003065F376B6@aaronsw.com>

On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 06:27 PM, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> While I'm not entirely sure how to interpret section 5, it certainly
> makes it clear that typical XML fragment identifier approaches don't
> apply directly to RDF in any useful way, at least any way that RDF
> understands.  If you could expand that section in a future draft, I'd
> appreciate it.

It's been the subject of much debate; any suggestions on what to add?

>> (The W3C serves *all* of its RDF documents with that mime type! All of
>> TimBL's carefully RDF-specified ...w3.org...#dogs and ...#cats turn 
>> out
>> to be elements, not animals.)
> Would it be better or worse if they served the RDF documents as
> image/png?

A little of both; browsers would get really confused. At one point they 
switched to application/rdf+xml but quickly switched back once they 
discovered that Internet Explorer offered to download it instead of 
display it as XML. If they want it displayed as XML, I'm not sure what 
else they can use. text/plain perhaps?

-- 
Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com] "Curb your consumption," he said.
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 20:27:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:34 UTC