- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:58:52 +0900
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
[copying ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, because that's really where discussion on the RFC 3023 update should occur] At 10:22 04/11/16, Tim Bray wrote: > >On Nov 8, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Chris Lilley wrote: > >> - the addition of XPointer as fragment identifiers (in current -00 >> draft) > >I oppose this, at least partly on the grounds of absence of use-cases. I think "XPointer as fragment id" is much too general to be able to agree or disagree. Possibilities range from "we suggest to stay within the XPointer framework when defining fragment ids for +xml media types" to "all +xml media types from now on have to understand the following XPointer schemes .... (long list)". Please publish a draft, so that everybody can look at it and comment. Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 00:21:03 UTC