W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: RDF media type and XPointer [Fwd: Re: An I-D for text/xml, application/xml, etc.]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:39:56 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040727203540.00b8b328@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Cc: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>

At 09:24 27/07/04 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>Well, the following paragraph:
>
>    If an XML-based media type requires a fragment identifier syntax
>    other than XPointer, the media type SHOULD NOT follow the naming
>    convention '+xml'.

Ouch, I was completely unaware of that.

Where does that paragraph come from?  I can't find it in RFC 3023 [1].

Ah, I do find the text in [2].  This is a proposed ID to replace the 
existing RFC 3023.  So RDF didn't do anything wrong according to RFC 3023, 
did it?

I think that the proposed replacement for RFC 3023 is incorrect in trying 
to retroactively specify behaviour for +xml media types that conflicts with 
existing practcie (i.e. RDF!).  Also, my recollection of discussions 
leading to RFC 3023 is that the +xml was a naming convention to act as an 
assist to get otherwise-unrecognized documents to be handled by some 
XML-savvy software rather than being treated as raw octets, and was not 
intended of itself to impose rigorous processing requirements.

Hmmm, I guess I should figure where to send that as a comment on [2].

#g
--

[1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt

[2] 
http://community.roxen.com/developers/idocs/drafts/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-00.html


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:48:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:04 UTC