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

Re: Generic processing of Fragment IDs in RFC 3023bis

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:53:18 -0400
Message-ID: <4CAB822E.5030208@arcanedomain.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
CC: www-tag@w3.org
Roy Fielding writes:

> Where ambiguity might be present, bare name fragments always refer to the semantics defined by the specific media type.

My impression is that Norm's preference is:

Where ambiguity might be present, bare name fragments always refer to the 
semantics defined for generic processing per 3023bis;  thus the semantics 
for each specific media type SHOULD be the same as the generic, at least 
insofar as the syntax overlaps.

Have I misunderstood you, Norm?

Noah


On 10/5/2010 3:45 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Where ambiguity might
> be present, bare name fragments always refer to the semantics defined
> by the specific media type.
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 19:53:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:28 GMT