Re: 3023bis and XPointer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Grosso, Paul writes:

> HST wrote:
>> . . .
>> That is, imagine the following scenario:
>> 
>>  1) I pass a URI of the form
>>     http://example.com/foo/baz/mumble.xyz#element(/1/2)
>>     to an application;
>
> Now I'm confused again.  Above I assumed you were saying that
> the zany media type defined its fragment id as just shorthand
> pointers.

All I said was that all it did was define the _semantics_ of shorthand
pointers.  I'm arguing, perhaps pedantically, that that is in fact
sufficient to define the semantics of element() scheme pointers as
well, so that the media type definition can sit comfortably with the
(per the current draft) 3023bis story about default fragment semantics
for +xml media types.

I guess another thing I didn't express well was that one important
sub-category of cases are legacy cases, where it never would have
occurred to anyone to specify a semantics for element() scheme
pointers, since 3023 as published+normal practice has only assumed
barenames are going to be used.

ht 
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMhQSTkjnJixAXWBoRAhKcAJ4m6BEXR49TR2gI5Sq5m00QtFDf4ACfff8w
fA++oKyXpQ0iSfm1MD/rLTs=
=1nH/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Monday, 6 September 2010 15:11:51 UTC