"Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions"

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

"Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions"

masinter
To be more explicit (and provide additional URLs):

   http://www.w3.org/TR/fragid-best-practices/ is now (as of last week) a W3C "First Public Working Draft" as the first step of the "Recommendation" track at W3C.
The W3C TAG plan for moving this to Recommendation is  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids.html 

(a) comments on the document itself should be sent to [hidden email]. Please note that the latest 'editor draft' is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids.

(b) it is likely too late to affect draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs

(c) Perhaps a reference to it from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs (as an informative source of considerations an expert reviewer might take into account) would be in order.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [apps-discuss] "Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions"

Murray S. Kucherawy-5
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Larry Masinter <[hidden email]> wrote:
To be more explicit (and provide additional URLs):

   http://www.w3.org/TR/fragid-best-practices/ is now (as of last week) a W3C "First Public Working Draft" as the first step of the "Recommendation" track at W3C.
The W3C TAG plan for moving this to Recommendation is  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids.html

(a) comments on the document itself should be sent to [hidden email]. Please note that the latest 'editor draft' is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids.

(b) it is likely too late to affect draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs

(c) Perhaps a reference to it from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs (as an informative source of considerations an expert reviewer might take into account) would be in order.


Is there any objection from the WG to making a reference to this in the suffix-regs document?  (Perhaps before we go there: Is that first w3.org URI going to be a permanent URI to which we could make reference?)

-MSK

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [apps-discuss] "Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions"

Henry S. Thompson
Murray S. Kucherawy writes:

> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Larry Masinter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> To be more explicit (and provide additional URLs):
>>
>>    http://www.w3.org/TR/fragid-best-practices/ is now (as of last week) a
>> W3C "First Public Working Draft" as the first step of the "Recommendation"
>> track at W3C.
>> . . .
> Is there any objection from the WG to making a reference to this in the
> suffix-regs document?

I can't speak officially for the rest of the TAG, but I am pretty sure
it is our hope that you will do precisely that.

> (Perhaps before we go there: Is that first w3.org URI going to be a
> permanent URI to which we could make reference?)

Yes, the URI above will be as permanent as any w3.org document URI.
It will track the latest version, and will eventually be the URI for
the approved W3C Recommendation, assuming we get that far.

ht
--
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: [hidden email]
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [apps-discuss] "Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions"

Ned Freed
In reply to this post by Murray S. Kucherawy-5
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Larry Masinter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > To be more explicit (and provide additional URLs):
> >
> >    http://www.w3.org/TR/fragid-best-practices/ is now (as of last week) a
> > W3C "First Public Working Draft" as the first step of the "Recommendation"
> > track at W3C.
> > The W3C TAG plan for moving this to Recommendation is
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids.html
> >
> > (a) comments on the document itself should be sent to [hidden email].
> > Please note that the latest 'editor draft' is
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids.
> >
> > (b) it is likely too late to affect draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs
> >
> > (c) Perhaps a reference to it from
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs (as
> > an informative source of considerations an expert reviewer might take into
> > account) would be in order.
> >
> >
> Is there any objection from the WG to making a reference to this in the
> suffix-regs document?  (Perhaps before we go there: Is that first
> w3.orgURI going to be a permanent URI to which we could make
> reference?)

I certainly have no objection, but I also think this doesn't have much value.
As I've pointed out several times now, the mandate of this document is to seed
the registry. Nothing more. As such, it seems, well, unlikely that people will
look in it for guidance as to how to define fragment identifiers.

The timing here is really unfortunate because this really belongs in the media
types registry document, but IMO adding such a reference there would require
reopening the document and probably issuing a second last call. And that's too
much, especially since, if past history is any indication the place people
will look for this material is in existing registrations they find in
the registry.

So perhaps the thing to do is clean up the fragment id information in
some existing registrations. Just a thought.

                                Ned

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Pending changes to draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs (was "Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions")

Alexey Melnikov
In reply to this post by masinter
On 30/07/2012 17:36, Larry Masinter wrote:

> To be more explicit (and provide additional URLs):
>
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/fragid-best-practices/ is now (as of last week) a W3C "First Public Working Draft" as the first step of the "Recommendation" track at W3C.
> The W3C TAG plan for moving this to Recommendation is  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/fragids.html
>
> (a) comments on the document itself should be sent to [hidden email]. Please note that the latest 'editor draft' is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids.
>
> (b) it is likely too late to affect draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs
>
> (c) Perhaps a reference to it from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs (as an informative source of considerations an expert reviewer might take into account) would be in order.

I've just read http://www.w3.org/TR/fragid-best-practices/ and I think
it would be a good idea to reference it informatively. Unless there are
objections from the APPSAWG Working Group, I will add the reference to
draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

FW: [apps-discuss] Pending changes to draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs (was "Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions")

masinter
I think this is an endorsement.


-----Original Message-----
From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 8:29 PM
To: Alexey Melnikov
Cc: Larry Masinter
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Pending changes to draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs (was "Best Practices for Fragment Identifiers and Media Type Definitions")

[offlist]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've just read http://www.w3.org/TR/fragid-best-practices/ and I think it
> would be a good idea to reference it informatively. Unless there are
> objections from the APPSAWG Working Group, I will add the reference to
> draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs.

Do you think it's ready to go after that?

-MSK