W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > July 2013

Re: XInclude 1.1 LC comment: fragid definition for XInclude 1.1

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:52:54 +0200
Message-ID: <51F77EE6.1030205@berkeley.edu>
To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
CC: Paul Grosso <paul@paulgrosso.name>

On 2013-07-29 16:35 , Paul Grosso wrote:
> Thank you for your comment on the XML Core WG's Last Call draft of
> XML Inclusions (XInclude) Version 1.1 (January 2013) [1] recorded at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-xinclude-comments/2013Feb/0000
> Please see the latest editor's draft at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2013/07/xinclude-11/
> and/or the diff-marked version at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2013/07/xinclude-11/diff.html
> especially the changes to the description of the fragid
> attribute in section 3.1 xi:include Element [1].
> Please reply to www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org indicating your
> acceptance of this disposition of your comment or explaining any
> remaining concerns you may have.

this looks good to me, thanks a lot for addressing my comment. it might 
be a nice touch to explicitly say that media types are supposed to 
register fragment identification schemes per 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288#section-4.11, and that the SHOULD in 
"implementations should process fragment identifiers per the relevant 
media type" corresponds to registered schemes that supported media types 
may have. but i don't think this would add any substance; it would just 
make it easier to connect the dots for people reading the spec.

thanks and cheers,


erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 08:53:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:58 UTC