- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 10:26:09 -0500
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, www-tag@w3.org, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
On 2010-12 -02, at 09:53, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > > On 2010-11 -29, at 19:05, Nathan wrote: > >> Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >>> Well, not really. >>> A general way of saying it is that the fragid is a document-global identifier in whatever language. You invent a new language, and it get s new global identifiers >>> So in a javascript module, for example, I would expect >>> foo.js#bar to be the global variable bar in the file foo. >> >> ahh insightful, I'd never seen it quite like that, so jumping a few hops one might conceivably specify a js require function and do something like: >> >> FastGraph = require('http://openjs.net/api/core.js#FastGraph); > > Yes, absolutely. With an RDF mesh of dependencies, that would > be a nice packaging system. > > > using core as 'http://openjs.net/api/core.js#' { > var fg = new core::FastGraph(); > ... > } > > It was interesting to chat with Brendan Eick about the ecmascript and e4X (ecmascript for xml) history. oops typo I Mean Brendan Eich of course > He mentioned e4x is actually implemented for example in Rhino, and uses :: for namespaces, > but only in the context of XML, not RDF or js itself. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript_for_XML > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-357.pdf > > > >> Thus enabling a universal require for js and an open web scale set of classes that can be used anywhere - although perhaps I read too far in to it! > > No, I think it would be neat. > See the red_import() for Python which > http://redfoot.net/2002/12/03/redfoot-1.7.3/doc/helloworld.html > alas 404 > >> >>> It is really important to be able to ivent new languages, >>> and so it hard to say how theyr global address space will work. >>> In the case of HTML and RDFA, we have a mixture of languages >>> so an localid can either identify an HTML anchor or a RDF concept. >>> I don't like the idea of things being both. >> >> Afaict, at runtime the two localids can never conflict, one is used within the scope of the DOM and the other combined with a string to create an RDF URI Reference / IRI - so is the issue that at webscale, when you encounter something with a fragmentid and that derefs to an HTML+RDFa document, you don't know to what it refers (wondering if again that's covered by the context within which you're asking the question), > > What a URI refers to must NEVER be covered by the context in which you ask the question. > That is important web architecture. > >> so then is it to do with what statements one may make about the said uri -with-frag thus creating possible ambiguity there? > > Well, might you want to use RDF languages to talk about fragments of a hypertext document too? > > ele:Mg a ch:Element; :warningNotice <warnings#mg>. > > where warnings#mg is an anchor within an HTML document. > Or also you might want an RDF view of the DOM inside a script. > > Tim > >
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 15:26:15 UTC