W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > June 2007

[Bug 4636] What should SML 3.3.1.1 say about fragment identifiers?

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:22:04 +0000
CC:
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1HyEkW-00024T-NC@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4636

           Summary: What should SML 3.3.1.1 say about fragment identifiers?
           Product: SML
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: Macintosh
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Core
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: cmsmcq@w3.org
         QAContact: public-sml@w3.org


Section 3.3.1.1, "Fragment Identifier", specifies that when the URI 
reference method is used, fragment identifiers must use the xmlns() 
and xpointer() schemes defined within the XPointer framework.

At the face to face meeting in Redmond (June 2007), some WG members suggested
that the SML spec really shouldn't talk about that level of detail, and
that 3.3.1.1 should be deleted.  Others felt that it should be retained,
if not necessarily in its current form, and that logical completeness in the
description of the URI spec demands that we have SOMETHING to say about
fragment identifiers.  (Web architecture says that fragment identifiers
depend on MIME types -- what MIME types do the documents in an SML model 
have?  TBD.)

Several questions seem to be deeply intertwined here:

1 Should we say anything at all about fragment identifiers?
2 Should we specify that fragment identifiers should fit within the
  XPath framework? 
3 Should we require that all SML processors who support the URI
  reference method [scheme] must support some specific set of
  fragment identifier schemes?  (As in the submission, which
  requires that xmlns() and xpointer() be supported.)  In other
  words -- what is the floor on which any producer of SML data
  may rely?  It was noted that in principle processors aren't
  required to support the URI scheme in the first place; some
  WG members felt this meant trying to require certain fragment
  schemes was doomed to unhelpfulness from the outset, while
  others felt that setting some sort of floor would be 
  nonetheless useful.
4 Should we require that all SML data which use the URI
  reference method [scheme] must formulated their fragment 
  identifiers using some specific set of fragment identifier schemes?  
  (As in the submission, which requires that xmlns() and xpointer() 
  be used.)  In other words, what is the ceiling which limits
  what schemes may be used in SML data or supported by SML
  software?  There was some sentiment for allowing any pointer
  scheme compatible with the XPointer framework.
5 Assuming we say anything at all, what should be said in the
  SML spec and what should be said in the SML IF spec?
  There was some sentiment for putting most of the detail into the IF
  spec and saying just enough in SML to achieve logical completeness.
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 22:22:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:53 GMT