- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:49:33 +0000
- To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, www-tag@w3.org
Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net> writes:
> 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.
I thought so too, at first, but then I concluded differently, and I
just got off-track as I wrote it and failed to be clear. But now I'm
not sure all over again.
Are we agreed on this much?: 3.2.2 is not about the _fragids_ being
defined, but the _semantics_ of fragids in general being defined.
So I think your critique is mistaken (also, because (1) is about the
existing NS doc were anchors to be added vs the existing schema
document).
But I still end up having made a mistake, because the _semantics_ of
fragids are defined on both sides (by HTML and 3023(bis), as text/html
and application/xml respectively, which _are_ consistent), so it's
covered by 3.2.2 case 1.
Sigh.
I'll follow up.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 15:50:19 UTC