- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:28:35 -0400
- To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m27hlwtl5o.fsf@nwalsh.com>
From the 16 June 2010 minutes: > 3023 does not talk about fragment identifiers (thought it should have). > 3023bis does talk about fragment identifiers for xml media types, so > this is the first time the +xml syntax for fragids is really discussed. > > 3023bis says that the +xml implies that the resource is suitable for > processing by generic xml processors. And it says that such xml > processors should handle fragment ids. Specifically, handling the > fragment identifiers in an rdf+xml document is not something that a > generic xml processor could do. > > The TAG was leaning toward removing the statement from 3023bis that > says that fragid syntax and semantics is something that any generic > xml processor can handle in a +xml resource. Hmph. That seems really unfortunate to me. Just because RDF has weird ideas about what fragment identifiers mean doesn't seem like a good reason to punish the rest of the XML world. Partly because 3023bis has taken for f'ing ever, I think there are lots of specs out there that have been written with the assumption that 3023 will define a common fragment identifier scheme. I can name two off the top of my head: http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#fragid http://docs.oasis-open.org/docbook/specs/docbook-5.0-spec-os.html#fragid Now, perhaps the editors and working groups associated with those specs should be rapped on the knuckles for making assumptions about 3023, but nevertheless there they are. And I don't think they're by any means unique. Part of the goal of 3023 was, in my mind at least, to define this common fragment identifier syntax. I haven't seen the minutes of the TAG meeting yet, but at present, I'm perfectly content with a world where 1. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3870.txt defines the fragment identifier scheme for application/rdf+xml representations. 2. RFC 3023 defines the fragment identifier scheme for application/*+xml representations. If I see an application/rdf+xml representation and I know about 1, I use it. Otherwise I use 2 and maybe I don't find the fragment or I find the wrong fragment and I move on with my life. But but but, I hear someone calling out, perhaps if you use 2 you'll be mislead by what you find and believe that the document means something other than it really means. Yes, perhaps (or at least, perhaps to the extent that I believe documents have one true, intrinsic meaning, which is not to a very large extent at all). Human systems are fraught with error. Everyone lies. Believe without corroboration what you find in a random document on the web at your own peril. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything the same; everything http://nwalsh.com/ | distinct.
Received on Friday, 18 June 2010 15:29:14 UTC