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

TAG on 3023bis [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 November 17]

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:41:40 -0500
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA01758734@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: Wednesday, 2010 November 17 11:00
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2010 November 17


> > 2. Miscellaneous administrivia and document reviews.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Larry replied to Norm's email at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Sep/0044
> > in which, among other things, he asks for examples of
> > generic XML tools which interpret fragids.
> >
> > The TAG discussed this during their f2f.  Draft minutes at
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/19-minutes#item04
> >
> > I'd still like to hear from Henry as to the status of this.
> >
> > ACTION to Henry:  Provide a status update on the 3023bis and
> > fragment identifier issue.
> >
> 
> ACTION to Henry continued.

Though I would still like to hear from Henry so I will leave
his action open, I believe the TAG's latest statement on this
topic is reflected by the email at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2010Oct/0070

paul
Received on Friday, 19 November 2010 14:45:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 19 November 2010 14:45:56 GMT