- From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:50:35 +0000
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
Jonathan Rees wrote: > I can't get too worked up about this but I don't like muddles. It > would be nice to have a straight story before issuing opinions on > things like 3023bis and fragids in redirects... can anyone think of a > fix? Looks to me - just off the cuff mind you - like the most > parsimonious fix is to say that fragids "identify" information > resources, abstracted over representation, with "representations" > defined in most cases according to the fragid sections of media type > specs - that is, reduce it to the previously unsolved problem "what is > an information resource". E.g. if GET http://example.com/doc yields a > representation with fragid aa "designating" an HTML element <ee/>, > then element <ee/> is a "representation" of the secondary resource > http://example.com/doc#aa . Neat! When trying to draft something for RDF [1], we tried to interpret the fragid in terms of the conventional "view" notion, which was always going to require a bit of artifice and squinting. Intepreting the view in terms of a secondary resource designation seems much cleaner. #g -- [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-fragID
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 09:25:37 UTC