- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 06:47:24 +0200
- To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
- Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
* Ned Freed wrote: >> This also does not seem to >> address a problem that we actually have, people do not register types >> with very similar yet different "fragment identifier schemes", and if >> they did so, that would very likely be for good reasons. > >Actually, if the Wikipedia page on these things can be believed, they do. For >example, different fragment id syntaxes for "page N" with what appear to be >idential semantics seem to exist. Yeah, but if you use #page=13 versus #page(13) or some other variation is likely for good reasons, like, you want to use some meta-mechanism like XPointer that allows one but not the other. Would be nice to have some proper statistics. >Based on this feedback, I now have (I'm leaving the XML in this time): > ><t> >Media type registrations can specify how applications should interpret >fragment identifiers <xref target="RFC3986"/> associated with the media type. ></t> > ><t> >Media types are encouraged to adopt fragment identifier schemes that are used >with semantically similar media types. In particular, media types that use a >named structured syntax with a registered "+suffix" MUST follow whatever >fragment identifier rules are given in the structured syntax suffix >registration. ></t> This seems reasonable to me, though it would seem better to turn that into a general "+suffix types must follow +suffix rules, whatever they are" requirement. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 04:47:46 UTC