- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:59:07 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
Henry Thompson wrote: >> If I'm right, the answer is "(c) neither", on the grounds that RDFa >> introduces nothing new with respect to the use of fragment identifiers >> (that's already in RDF) or with respect to the_interpretation_ of >> fragment identifiers, since no RDFa attribute creates an anchor in the >> resource corresponding to its host document. Talking about the general case, as opposed to RDFa in particular, I'm not convinced that is the right criterion for deciding there are no issues with respect to media type registration. First of all, at the very least, it needs to be shown that none of the fragment syntax that the new facility defines for non-anchor references overlaps with syntax already devoted to identification of anchors. Furthermore, even if there were no such conflict, the position you take seems to violate the spirit of the Self-describing Web finding [1], which says that when new formats are needed for use with the Web: "it's essential that the pertinent specifications be reachable by references, preferably in the form of Web links, from the specifications for existing Web technologies." Returning to the example of RDFa in HTML in particular, the chain of specifications that cover the interpretation of representations of format text/html runs through the media type registration. Therefore, it seems to me that even if any new fragment syntax is used for purposes completely unrelated to identify portions of the representation, it is still essential that the specifications for interpretation of the new syntax be reachable following a normative chain through the media type registration. What am I missing? Thank you. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments.html#groundingSpecifications
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 17:59:31 UTC