ISSUE-84: The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic

Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14

The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic

State:
CLOSED
Product:
LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1
Raised by:
Manu Sporny
Opened on:
2011-02-08
Description:
This is very informal, a formal request will come in a few weeks, but we need to start discussing this before the 2nd Last Call for RDFa Core goes out.

Basically the TAG wants to ask the RDFa WG not to fix the RDFa fragid problem, but to document it.

That is, somewhere in one of your rec-track (not necessarily 'normative') documents, there should be an explanation of the issue (fragid use implicitly encouraged by RDFa specs, but not described in any media type registration), as a sort of warning and disclaimer. Not to tell people don't do it, but to alert everyone that there's an issue with the specs.

Then maybe someone later can come along later and clean things up by fixing 3986, AWWW, the registrations, or something else.

The goal is for it to be possible to start with RFC 3986 and find through a sequence of normative documents some statement of what the fragid means. In the case of an important RDFa practice this isn't possible - you look at the text/html or application/xhtml+xml media type registration, and they have stories about fragids that don't include the RDFa use.
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: Official Response to ISSUE-84 from RDF Web Apps WG (from jeni@jenitennison.com on 2012-01-29)
  2. Official Response to ISSUE-84 from RDF Web Apps WG (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2012-01-28)
  3. Telecon Agenda - January 19th 2012, 1500 UTC (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2012-01-18)
  4. RDFa WG telecon minutes for 2011-03-24 (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2011-03-24)
  5. RDFa WG telecon minutes for 2011-02-14 (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2011-02-14)
  6. Re: URGENT: RDFa Super Session II: The Last Calling (from shane@aptest.com on 2011-02-14)
  7. Re: URGENT: RDFa Super Session II: The Last Calling (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-02-14)
  8. URGENT: RDFa Super Session II: The Last Calling (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2011-02-14)
  9. Re: Telecon Agenda - February 10th 2011, 1400 UTC (from benjamin.adrian@dfki.de on 2011-02-10)
  10. Re: ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-02-08)
  11. Re: ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-02-08)
  12. Re: ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-02-08)
  13. Re: ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-02-08)
  14. Re: ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-02-08)
  15. Re: ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-02-08)
  16. Re: ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-02-08)
  17. Re: ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-02-08)
  18. Re: ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-02-08)
  19. Re: ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-02-08)
  20. ISSUE-84 (Cool URIs and HTTPRange-14): The W3C TAG has asked us to mention that the use of fragment identifiers can be problematic [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-02-08)
  21. Telecon Agenda - February 10th 2011, 1400 UTC (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2011-02-07)

Related notes:

This change has been made.

Shane McCarron, 2 Mar 2011, 05:02:59

Re-opened issue based on feedback from Jeni Tennison on WWW-TAG.

Manu Sporny, 18 Jan 2012, 15:18:24

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Dec/0055.html

Manu Sporny, 18 Jan 2012, 15:20:02

RESOLVED: Adopt the WWW TAG proposed language on fragment identifiers and place it into RDFa Core 1.1

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2012-01-19#resolution_1

Manu Sporny, 28 Jan 2012, 17:04:07

Display change log ATOM feed


Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 84.html,v 1.1 2015/03/27 14:12:34 vivien Exp $