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

Re: Generic processing of Fragment IDs in RFC 3023bis

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:25:27 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2bp77rruw.fsf@nwalsh.com>
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

Received on Wednesday, 6 October 2010 20:26:02 GMT

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