- From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:03:33 -0500
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
[cc: schema-comments removed] On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: ... > 1) Because if we added such anchors they would be present in only one > of two content-negotiable representations retrievable from the > namespace URI, contra AWWW's statement that > > "representation providers must not use content negotiation to > serve representation formats that have inconsistent fragment > identifier semantics" [5] ... AWWW 3.2 says that if a fragid is defined in one variant and not another this is OK. That is, one of the variants is merely incomplete, not inconsistent. [[ The third case is not a server management error. It is a means by which the Web can grow. Because the Web is a distributed system in which formats and agents are deployed in a non-uniform manner, Web architecture does not constrain authors to only use "lowest common denominator" formats. Content authors may take advantage of new data formats while still ensuring reasonable backward-compatibility for agents that do not yet implement them. ]] Well, the prose is not a perfect match to this situation, but I have always interpreted it to cover situations like the one we're hypothesizing, where the HTML variant defines a fragid (via RDFa) and the XML variant doesn't. RDFa is a "new data format" not supported by Schema. Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 14:04:08 UTC