Re: Generic processing of Fragment IDs in RFC 3023bis

Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> writes:
> 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?

No. If I see application/frob+xml and am asked to resolve the barename
"foo", I want license to resolve it to the element in the document
which has the (xml:)id attribute with the value "foo".

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
www.marklogic.com