- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:34:52 -0400
- To: Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Cc: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, uri@w3.org, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Sebastian Hellmann scripsit:
> The basic problem seems to be the definition of what plain text is. I
> guess you are talking about the media type, while I am talking about
> plain text in general. My definition would be a bit broader such
> as: "Plain text is basically anything that makes sense to open in a
> text editor. " or negatively "Not a binary format." or "a character
> sequence".
I would say that what can be edited in a text editor is text. Plain
text, then, is a particular form of text that doesn't have any explicit
presentation or semantic markup, with the significant exception of
horizontal and vertical whitespace encoded as characters. There may be
markup, but it's implicit.
> I am a little worried as fragment-ids are so restricted to media
> types, especially since you could easily reuse them, i.e. plain text
> RFC 5147 for CSV and *ML
You could, but fragment ids that match the semantic model would be much
more robust and useful, like row/column for CSV and XPath for XML.
--
All Norstrilians knew that humor was John Cowan
"pleasurable corrigible malfunction". cowan@ccil.org
--Cordwainer Smith, Norstrilia
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 15:35:19 UTC