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

Re: TAG concern wrt 3023bis, +xml media types and fragids

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:28:35 -0400
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m27hlwtl5o.fsf@nwalsh.com>
From the 16 June 2010 minutes:

> 3023 does not talk about fragment identifiers (thought it should have).
> 3023bis does talk about fragment identifiers for xml media types, so
> this is the first time the +xml syntax for fragids is really discussed.
> 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.

Hmph. That seems really unfortunate to me. Just because RDF has weird
ideas about what fragment identifiers mean doesn't seem like a good
reason to punish the rest of the XML world.

Partly because 3023bis has taken for f'ing ever, I think there are
lots of specs out there that have been written with the assumption
that 3023 will define a common fragment identifier scheme. I can name
two off the top of my head:


Now, perhaps the editors and working groups associated with those
specs should be rapped on the knuckles for making assumptions about
3023, but nevertheless there they are. And I don't think they're by
any means unique.

Part of the goal of 3023 was, in my mind at least, to define this
common fragment identifier syntax.

I haven't seen the minutes of the TAG meeting yet, but at present,
I'm perfectly content with a world where

1. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3870.txt defines the fragment identifier
   scheme for application/rdf+xml representations.

2. RFC 3023 defines the fragment identifier scheme for
   application/*+xml representations.

If I see an application/rdf+xml representation and I know about 1, I
use it. Otherwise I use 2 and maybe I don't find the fragment or I
find the wrong fragment and I move on with my life.

But but but, I hear someone calling out, perhaps if you use 2 you'll
be mislead by what you find and believe that the document means
something other than it really means. Yes, perhaps (or at least,
perhaps to the extent that I believe documents have one true,
intrinsic meaning, which is not to a very large extent at all).

Human systems are fraught with error. Everyone lies. Believe without
corroboration what you find in a random document on the web at your
own peril.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything the same; everything
http://nwalsh.com/            | distinct.

Received on Friday, 18 June 2010 15:29:14 UTC

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