W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > August 2010

TAG, media types, fragids [was: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 August 11]

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:42:31 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA947FA9@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul
> Sent: Monday, 2010 August 09 9:00
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Agenda for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 August 11

> TAG concern wrt 3023bis, +xml media types and fragids
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Henry sent email about this at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jun/0006
> 3023bis says that the +xml implies that the resource is suitable for
> processing by generic xml processors.  And it says that such xml
> processors should handle fragment ids.  Specifically, handling the
> fragment identifiers in an rdf+xml document is not something that a
> generic xml processor could do.
> The TAG was leaning toward removing the statement from 3023bis that
> says that fragid syntax and semantics is something that any generic
> xml processor can handle in a +xml resource.  Noah sent email and
> Norm has replied.  See the thread at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/thread.html#msg125
> Somewhat related, Henry sent email about XML fragid interpretation at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jun/0025
> Norm and John prefer to allow RDF (and others) to be an exception,
> but the rule is that the default treatment is as specified in
> XPointer Framework.
> Norm and John (among others) weighed in; see the thread at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/thread.html#msg125
> and
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jul/thread.html#msg0
> Norm's latest (as of July 26, posted July 14) is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jul/0020
> We've seen no progress on this since July 14.
> We'll ask Henry for a TAG status on this on August 11.

Henry is off the hook--Noah just sent email at

we will take up consideration of 
the concerns in the fall, after more of our members return from their 
summer breaks. 

Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 21:43:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:42 UTC