W3C | TAG | TAG Work Plan

TAG Product: Fragment Identifiers and Mime Types

Goals

The goal of this work is to describe the contradictions in the definitions between different specifications (such as media fragments and application/xml mime type definition) in the definition of fragment identifiers, to describe any changes to draft documents that are required to manage those contradictions, and to provide some general guidelines to those creating mime type definitions in the future around the interpretation of fragment identifiers.

Success criteria

• The TAG will work, as appropriate, with any or all of the following groups to avoid and/or resolve contradictions that might otherwise arise in their draft or published specifications.
  • the editors of 3023bis
  • the editors of the mime type definition for SVG
  • the RDFa Working Group
  • the Media Fragments Working Group
  • the HTML Working Group
  which avoids or documents contradictions in the final versions of the drafts those groups are currently working on.
• The TAG will work with the IETF and the W3C to update the templates for MIME type registrations as necessary to promote consistent and accurate documentation of fragment id semantics
• The TAG will provide guidelines that are used in the sections on fragment identifiers by the developers of future mime type regulations.

Key deliverables with dates:

• Comments accepted on media type registration draft: April 2012 (Complete)
• Candidate Recommendation on Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers in Media Type Definitions: January 2013

Schedules:

• 1 June 2012: First Editorial Draft of Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers in Media Type Definitions for review at June F2F
• 26 July 2012: First Public Working Draft
• mid October 2012: Last Call Working Draft
• mid January 2013: Candidate Recommendation
• further timelines depend on exit criteria from CR and implementations likely to be based on media type and +suffix registrations

TAG Members assigned:

Jeni Tennison, Larry Masinter (offered to help on 3 May 2012)

Drafts, etc.

Editor's Draft: Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers in Media Type Definitions

First Public Working Draft: Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers in Media Type Definitions

Editor's Draft: Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers in Media Type Definitions

See also Jeni Tennision's 31 May 2011 E-mail (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011May/0089.html) framing some of the issues in this area.

Discussion of this topic at June 2011 F2F

TAG Issues, Actions and Tracker Product Page

Issues

• ISSUE-1: Should W3C WGs define their own media types?
• ISSUE-9: Why does the Web use mime types and not URIs?
• ISSUE-66: The role of MIME in the Web Architecture

Actions

• ACTION-509: Communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue (Jonathan Rees)
• ACTION-543: Propose addition to MIME/Web draft to discuss sem-web use of fragids not grounded in media type (Jeni Tennison)
• ACTION-564: Track fragid issues in 3023bis, report to TAG and/or communicate with 3023bis editors as appropriate (Henry Thompson)
• ACTION-567: Draft a document describing problems around fragids and ways things should be changed (Jeni Tennison)
• ACTION-576: With help from Henry to figure out impact of RDFa core on generic fragids story, especially in 3023bis (Jonathan Rees)
• ACTION-754: With Larry work out what the exit criteria from CR for fragids best practices should be (Jeni Tennison)