- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:27:25 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
On 23/06/2014 13:28 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> You could also use these, if you prefer their description here:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/single-page.html#attr-track-kind-subtitles
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/single-page.html#attr-track-kind-captions
> etc
I think that the fact that you're giving David a choice is part of the
problem :)
If two systems need to refer to these in a coherent, interoperable
manner, they should be able to do so independently of one another. I
don't say that this is a recommendation for URNs, but it does surface
the notion that there could be value in us stating which ought to be
used. After that, so long as there's a reliable string, whether it's a
URN, a given URL or another, it doesn't matter.
If your recommended best is indeed to use URLs that anchor into the spec
(which makes sense to me) I would recommend:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html/#attr-track-kind-subtitles
over
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/single-page.html#attr-track-kind-subtitles
Advantages:
• Shorter
• The "html" short name will continue to refer to the latest version
of HTML whereas "html5" will possible stick to HTML 5.0.
• You don't need to give a file name, every page in that spec looks
at the fragment identifier and redirects to the right page (which is
good for humans, harmless for other systems).
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 13:27:43 UTC