Re: New version of "Best Practices for Fragids"

Julian,

On 17 Apr 2013, at 18:50, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I realised this but it seemed that, despite that note, it would be likely that people might use that fragid syntax for JSON-based formats. This might be something we want to flag explicitly as something to avoid if documents using that format were likely to be conneg'd with HTML documents using frameworks such as ember.js.

>> 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.


OK, thanks. I'll update.

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 19:38:25 UTC