- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 18:53:21 -0400
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
For what it's worth - and backing up your point that RDF seems to be doing its own thing with fragids independent of what 3986 says - of the many RDF serialization format registrations either completed or in progress, the only one that says anything about fragids is application/rdf+xml (RFC 3870). Turtle and N3 are registered: http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/turtle http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/n3 but say nothing about fragids. OWL Manchester, Functional, and XML are submitted and in progress, and say nothing. And of course, as I said, text/html and application/xml also say nothing. This state of affairs reinforces the RDFa view that updating the registrations is either unnecessary or unimportant. If Turtle doesn't do it, why should RDFa do it? (ACTION-509) Maybe this is right, I don't know. If we end up deciding this is important, we might consider updating the W3C guide on registering media types http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype to urge consideration of fragids, since this document is very likely what the authors of all the above registrations consulted. That doesn't solve the problem in general, but it would be a start. (thanks for help from Eric P, Ivan H, and Sandro H) Jonathan
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 22:53:48 UTC