- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:15:38 +0200
- To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
- CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>, john+ietf@jck.com, tony+mtsuffix@maillennium.att.com, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
On 2012-04-17 02:53, Ned Freed wrote: > ... > I note that this raises the issue of what to do about fragment identifiers in > the initial suffix registry document. Fragment identifiers don't really make > sense for most of the suffixes defined there. The exceptions I see are +xml and > +json. +json seems simple enough - refer to draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-01. > ... I think that would be premature. The question has come up several times, and I don't think we are near any kind of even rough consensus about whether the spec should try to define a fragment identifier syntax for "+json" (or even application/json). > +xml is a bigger issue. This is a document to populate the registry; it is not > the place to define how fragment identifiers for XML work. But RFC 3023 section > 5 seems a bit dated. And waiting for a revision for RFC 3023 when there isn't > even an I-D doesn't sound like a good idea. So dated or not, I guess a > reference to RFC 3023 is as good as it gets for now. Indeed. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 07:16:11 UTC