- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:05:44 +0000
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, www-tag@w3.org, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
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); 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! > 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), so then is it to do with what statements one may make about the said uri -with-frag thus creating possible ambiguity there? Best, Nathan ps: I have a bad habit of just asking questions whereever, if these kind of comments are out of scope for the TAG list please do say! > Tim > > > On 2010-11 -29, at 18:29, Nathan wrote: > >> Jonathan Rees wrote: >>> Re ACTION-502: Report back on discussions with Ben Adida regarding >>> fragid semantics for RDFa >>> According to RFC 3986, a "fragment's format and resolution is >>> ... dependent on the media type of a potentially retrieved >>> representation". >> Would it be possible to have a generic web scale fragment processing rule which applies when a media-type does not specifically provide it's own processing rules, and indeed to which they can defer if the question is ever asked? >> >> Best, >> >> Nathan >> >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:06:34 UTC