Re: An I-D for text/xml, application/xml, etc.

On Monday, July 26, 2004, 7:04:26 AM, Masayasu wrote:


MI> I think applying this requirement to media types such as
MI> 'application/xhtml+xml' would be straightforward, and I'm reasonably
MI> certain that RFC 3236 [1] will be updated accordingly in due course.

MI> However, I'm not quite sure whether this is really applicable to
MI> 'application/rdf+xml' [2].  What does #element(/1/2) mean in
MI> 'application/rdf+xml'?

Its very clear what it means. Its not at all clear that it is a useful
thing to point to.

This is likely to result in pushback because implementors don't like
implementing things that can be done but have no use.

MI>  Is there any conflict between RDF's concept
MI> of fragment identifiers [3] and this requirement?

There isn't a conflict, in that application/rdf+xml can add its fragid
syntax to the +xml fragid syntax. There may be a conflict in
implementors saying they don't want to add the +xml fragid syntax. Or
there might be support from implementors who like to have a uniform
fragid syntax in a multinamespace, comound documents scenario.




-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group