Re: Fragment in HTML + RDF

On 24 Oct 2007, at 12:01, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> There are three possible attitudes:
> 1) don't mix HTML and RDF, HTML will always have anchors. I think  
> that this doesn't meet the need.
> 2) Do mix RDF and HTML, allow one file to define both anchors and  
> arbitrary things.  Don't let the same fragid be used for both an  
> anchor and a thing.
> 3) Do mix them, and by the way, allow the same fragid to be used as  
> an ID for an anchor and an ID for a thing, with RDF clients and  
> HTML clienst doing different things.  I think that this path leads  
> to madness, as in a script for exaple, I may want to use a URI to  
> refer to one or the other unambiguously. It also makes it  
> impossible for HTML+RDF clients.
> So (2) is my preference, and I feel it should be written down  
> somewhere. Actually the MIME type registration for HTML would be  
> the logical place.  A TAG finding could be  pragmatic place too.

I agree that it's an important issue. I agree that 2) would be a huge  
improvement over 1), and that 3) is a recipe for disaster.

Regarding Xiaoshu's point that 2) doesn't allow us to click on an RDF  
hash URI and end up scrolled to the right spot in the HTML: I agree  
that this is a problem. But I think it's a Web browser implementation  
issue, and can be worked around with in-browser trickery, such as a  
bit of Javascript. So I'd say there's no need to bend the architecture.


> Tim BL

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 16:37:43 UTC