- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:59:47 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
FYI, here's what I sent to the RDFa WG re my ACTION-509. Their "second last call" period ended yesterday. Jonathan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> Date: Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:39 PM Subject: RDFa Core last call comments - "have not yet caught up" To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org Re http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdfa-core-20110331/#s_Syntax_overview The Note in section 2 says: However, the media type registrations that govern the meaning of fragment identifiers (see section 3.5 of the URI specification [RFC3986], [RFC3023], and [RFC2854]) have not yet caught up with this practice. You added this note in response to the TAG's request that you explain that there is an issue, even if no solution is offered. Thanks for doing this. However, "not yet caught up" sounds too much like a promise. It implies that you believe the specs *will* catch up with RDFa. You would need some justification for this, such as someone having volunteered to changing the registrations or RFC 3986. I don't think you have such justification. You might just stick with a more factual statement such as Unfortunately, this practice is not at present covered by the media type registrations that govern the meaning of fragment identifiers (see section 3.5 of the URI specification [RFC3986], [RFC3023], and [RFC2854]). This may be sufficient. "At present" is a bit of a weasel hinting at possible change but not predicting it. This wording may leave the reader wondering what to make of the contradiction - does it mean they shouldn't use fragids after all because they're out of spec? I've been trying to come up with a followon sentence that is reassuring, without success so far. You could say for example that you believe that there is no serious incompatibility and that you *hope* that the specs will be made consistent in the future. Or you might say that you think the specs are wrong and should be ignored, but that would encourage an anti-specification attitude that could be used against RDFa itself (and much of what W3C does). I'm sorry I can't be more helpful right now. Perhaps the reference to webarch in the next sentence will be adequate (in some nonspecific way) and we don't need an additional sentence saying that these fragids are OK. We've been talking about media type registrations and fragids a fair amount in the TAG. This particular topic was taken up at the 24 March 2011 TAG meeting: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/03/24-minutes.html See also http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/543 It's a rather painful part of the architecture, and no one likes it, but it's not obvious how to fix it. This message has not been vetted with the TAG, so should be taken as individual communication, but I've done my best to represent what others in the TAG have said on the subject. Best Jonathan
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 13:00:14 UTC