- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 23:33:32 +0100
- To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Hi,
We're due to have a session on mime types and fragids at the F2F next week. Below is the intended agenda and background reading (it looks a lot but is mostly either short sections within larger documents or 'just enough to get the gist').
Cheers,
Jeni
---
AIMS
- make decision on direction we take on RDFa Core (ACTION-509)
- agree text for MIME and the Web draft on fragids (ACTION-543)
- make decision (again) on direction we take on 3023bis (application/xml)
- identify other actions to resolve fragid issues
AGENDA
1. Current specifications
- URI spec
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#page-24
- AWWW
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#fragid
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#internet-media-type
2. Emerging practice and opportunities
a. New XML mime type definition
- 3023bis [DRAFT]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-04.html#frag
- XPointer framework
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-xptr-framework-20030325/
b. Hashbangs
- HTML mime type definition
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt
- XHTML mime type definition
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt
c. Images and video
- media type fragments [DRAFT]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-media-frags-20110317/
- SVG mime type definition [DRAFT?]
http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg01153.html
d. Semantic web
- application/rdf+xml mime type definition
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3870.txt
- RDFa core
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdfa-core-20110331/
- Turtle [to be updated by RDF WG]
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/turtle
- N3 [submission]
http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2011/SUBM-n3-20110328/#sec-mediaReg
- N-triples
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-testcases-20040210/#ntriples
- Manchester OWL Syntax [NOTE]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-owl2-manchester-syntax-20091027/#Appendix:_Internet_Media_Type.2C_File_Extension_and_Macintosh_File_Type
3. Discussion
a. Under 3023bis rules, SVG cannot specify support for media type fragments
- is this a problem?
- should SVG have a non-+xml media type so that it can?
- should 3023bis allow +xml media types to support other fragment id syntaxes?
b. Under 3023bis rules, any application/xml or +xml document's fragments must indicate XML elements
- what fragids can an RDFa XML document use and be consistent with 3023bis?
- what fragids can an XHTML document use and be consistent with 3023bis?
- should 3023bis allow +xml media types to define fragids that point to things other than XML elements?
c. In practice, does it matter what the mime type definitions say?
- how do applications work out what fragment identifiers to interpret?
- what happens when applications interpret additional fragment identifiers?
(eg if an image rendering application applied media type fragments to SVG)
- what happens when different applications interpret fragment identifiers differently?
(eg if an XML processor interprets #me as an error, RDF processor as a Person)
d. What additional guidelines or rewriting is needed
- to 3023bis
- to RDFa Core
- to RDF Concepts?
- to AWWW
- to URI spec
- to 'how to define fragment identifier semantics'
- to IETF or W3C processes?
4. Decisions and action assignment
OTHER READING
- Previous decisions on 3023bis
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/06/08-minutes.html#item01
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0125.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Nov/0078.html
- Proposal for mime type fragid section by Jeni (ACTION-543)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0000.html
- Summary of issues around 3023bis and impact on RDFa and other specs
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0027.html
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 22:33:58 UTC