W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Generic processing of Fragment IDs in RFC 3023bis

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:00:40 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinX4Wx3j-PxrU68j0avwVoergSqPia2dU6vvRM_@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:28 AM, MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
> <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>> Noah,
>>
>> Thank you for your mail and providing information about
>> application/rdf+xml.  I  wonder if the TAG has also considered
>> about the possibility of explicitly mentioning application/rdf+xml as an
>> exception of generic handling of fragment identifiers and providing
>> an exhaustive list of such exceptional media types in RFC3023bis.
>
> Interesting you should ask. We did consider four options and this was
> one of them. I think Larry on a recent telcon gave the best rationale
> for preferring the solution we did over this one, which is that (a)
> there is an unknown number of other +xml registrations that also
> conflict with this kind of generic processing,

FWIW, I had a quick look at this last night.  There are 267 registered
application/*+xml types, and of the ten random types I looked at, two
deferred to 3023, and the remaining eight said nothing about fragment
identifiers.

Also, AFAICT, 3023 doesn't prescribe any generic interpretation, it
merely points to XPointer informatively as a work in progress;

   As of today, no established specifications define identifiers for XML
   media types.  However, a working draft published by W3C, namely "XML
   Pointer Language (XPointer)", attempts to define fragment identifiers
   for text/xml and application/xml.  The current specification for
   XPointer is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr.

Mark.
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 15:01:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:06 UTC