Since I can't make the call tomorrow I thought I'd put a few thoughts below. On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Noah Mendelsohn <noah@arcanedomain.com> wrote: > 4. Polyglot and DOM support of XML Putting effort into this is unnecessary I think. The web will succeed with or without XML and the web's architecture does not really depend on it (and even less on weird hybrid syntaxes such as Polyglot). > 5. Fragment identifier semantics: I think this will largely depend on the application and its XML MIME type story. E.g. data:application/rdf+xml,<b xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="test">TEST<style>:target{background:lime}</style></b>#test gives a green background in Firefox. Which seems reasonable if you treat all XML MIME types identically. If you have a RDF browser and it recognizes something is RDF, however that is defined, it having application-specific semantics for the fragment identifier seems fine. Just like some JavaScript applications do completely different things with them. I suppose there might be some relevance to web architecture here, at least how it was originally conceived, but it seems fairly minor. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 15:52:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 February 2013 15:52:45 GMT