W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Near final draft of TAG finding on the Self-Describing Web

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:03:52 -0500
To: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3C894357.03CC1119-ON8525754D.007E226B-8525754D.007E746A@lotus.com>

Mark Baker wrote:

> Also, in section 6.1, reference is made to RFC 2717 (as an example)
> which has been obsoleted by RFC 4395.

Last week we agreed to publish the Self-describing Web finding [1], with a 
few more changes.  I notice that we forgot to explicitly consider this 
concern (my fault).  If I correctly understand the discussion that ensued 
from your note, the right thing to do would be to change the refernce from 
RFC 2717 to BCP 35.  Mark and Larry, do you agree?

Heads up to TAG members: in preparing the final draft, I am making the 
change to BCP 35.  If for any reason you think this is a mistake, or want 
to hold up publication for (yet more) discussion, please let me know ASAP. 
 Thank you.

Noah

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-2009-01-15.html

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
01/16/2009 03:39 PM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     www-tag@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: Near final draft of TAG finding on the 
Self-Describing Web



Noah,

I like the draft and the recent changes to it very much.

I have an issue with Sec 4.2.3, "Self-describing XML Documents",
though, specifically the second sentence which says;

"Given that a Web document is of media type application/xml, or in the
family of media types application/____+xml, recursive processing from
the root element may be applied to determine not just the overall
nature of the document, but also the meaning in context of all
sub-elements."

My concern is with the mention of the application/xml media type
there, which I feel inappropriate because RFC 3023 doesn't license,
for example, that an XHTML document delivered as application/xml is
intended to evoke XHTML semantics.

Also, in section 6.1, reference is made to RFC 2717 (as an example)
which has been obsoleted by RFC 4395.

Mark.
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 05:19:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:11 GMT