W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Concerns about backwards compatibility of media fragments

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 20:22:19 +0100
Message-ID: <31FC944F-5A84-406C-9D8F-6F5BA857BDC7@deri.org>
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

> Ah.  They're not in the registration document, but that's presumably just because the template in RFC 4288 doesn't ask for that information.



It's a SHOULD (cf sec. 4.11 of RFC 4288), but let's not do spec lawyering ;)

> The registration does link to SVG 1.1 as the published specification that describes behavior of this media type, and SVG 1.1 section 5.3.1 clearly says that IRI references are used extensively for particular purposes by SVG.

I do not disagree and I don't see a problem. If you read my review on the Wiki page carefully, I back then suggested to proactively approach people to sort out things. Now as the SVG case is known to the WG it should be treated respectively.

Cheers,
Michael

Sent from my iPad

On 6 May 2011, at 20:08, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> On 5/6/11 3:00 PM, Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
>> Boris,
>> 
>> I did the analysis, see [1], but I don't see fragments explicitly mentioned in the registration document, hence maybe the confusion.
> 
> Ah.  They're not in the registration document, but that's presumably just because the template in RFC 4288 doesn't ask for that information.
> 
> The registration does link to SVG 1.1 as the published specification that describes behavior of this media type, and SVG 1.1 section 5.3.1 clearly says that IRI references are used extensively for particular purposes by SVG.
> 
> -Boris
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 19:21:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:46 UTC