W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2002

Re: proposed charter items for possible URI working group

From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@dret.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:48:44 +0200
Message-ID: <3D57CACC.2070408@dret.net>
To: uri@w3.org


 > I'd like to have a BCP RFC documenting the recent practise for new
 > fragment identification mechanisms like XPointer or as proposed in
 > XFrames to use some functional notations in the fragment identifier
 > just like
 >   document#xpointer(...)
 >   document#frames(...)
 >   document#xmlns(...)%20element(...)

the problem here is that there is no such thing as a best current 
practice (at least that's my impression). xpointer and 
draft-borden-frag-00  use parantheses, while others are opposed to this 
syntax and prefer a simpler way of designing fragment identifiers (for 
example, see roy fielding's comment in the previous thread about 
"updated internet draft: 'URI Fragment Identifiers for the text/plain 
Media Type'" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2002Aug/0004.html)

now, the question i have is: since there is no established current best 
practice, what should i do with my draft about text/plain fragment 
identifiers? should i wait until there is an established way of 
designing fragment identifiers (how long will this take)? should i 
choose roy's good old days syntax? or the more recent xpointer-syntax? 
any comments are very welcome, since i would like to make a choice and 
then stick with it.


erik wilde  -  tel:+41-1-6325132  -  fax:+41-1-6321035
           mailto:net.dret@dret.net -  http://dret.net/
           computer engineering and networks laboratory
           swiss federal institute of technology  (eth)
           * try not. do, or do not. there is no try. *
Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 10:50:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:04 UTC