W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2013

Re: New version of "Best Practices for Fragids"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:50:04 +0200
Message-ID: <516EE0CC.6070208@gmx.de>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2013-04-17 18:27, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> Hi,
> A new version of "Best Practices for Fragids" is here:
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids-2013-04-04.html
> This adds the things discussed at the F2F:
>   a. a note that emphasises that there's no need for a given fragid to be resolvable across all conneg'd variants
>   b. some wording that highlights the use of fragid interpretation by scripts to identify portions of embedded resources such as images or video
>   c. an appendix that lists the fragid structures that I could find
> The latter throws up a case which I hadn't registered: JSON Pointer is already defining fragids for JSON which start with a /, which could lead to precisely the conflicts between conneg'd HTML & JSON that IIRC Yehuda was concerned about when we discussed this.

Actually, it does mention the use of JSON pointers as fragment 
identifiers, but it does *not* make them the fragment identifier format 
for application/json:

    Note that a given media type needs to specify JSON Pointer as its
    fragment identifier syntax explicitly (usually, in its registration
    [RFC6838]).  That is, just because a document is JSON does not imply
    that JSON Pointer can be used as its fragment identifier syntax.  In
    particular, the fragment identifier syntax for application/json is
    not JSON Pointer.

> I think the JSON Pointer work is not quite done. So I think we should start a conversation with the authors of that about instead recommending #json=/... instead.

It's already published as RFC 6901.

> Noah, this is something we could discuss on Thursday, if there's room on the agenda. I am likely to only be there for the first hour of the call I'm afraid, so if it could be scheduled early that would be helpful.
> Thanks,
> Jeni

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 17:50:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:55 UTC