- From: Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:23:24 +1000 (EST)
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> I agree that is important and useful and > hopefully will be possible one way or another. > However I think we need both data and metadata. Yes, however will that metadata be about *resources* as with RDF, or about *representations* as with HTML <meta> tags and ALT attributes and embedded JPEG/PNG metadata and so on? > Mostly the SW wants to use URIs with fragIDs (ie > the aa:bb#cc thingies) to denote other things > than documents altogether. Maybe this is > consistent with what you are saying, I'm not sure > what it means to say what a fragID refers to all > by itself. Sorry, I did not say that clearly. I meant that URI+fragID is no longer a URI, it is a new syntactic construct (URI ref) which acts as a shorthand for a URI plus some additional locator that operates on representations. Using this construct to denote something other than a fragment of a representation available at a particular URI seems harmful, and is certainly underspecified. Best regards, Michael -- YesLogic Prince prints XML! http://yeslogic.com
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 04:20:56 UTC