- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:39:56 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Cc: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
At 09:24 27/07/04 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >Well, the following paragraph: > > If an XML-based media type requires a fragment identifier syntax > other than XPointer, the media type SHOULD NOT follow the naming > convention '+xml'. Ouch, I was completely unaware of that. Where does that paragraph come from? I can't find it in RFC 3023 [1]. Ah, I do find the text in [2]. This is a proposed ID to replace the existing RFC 3023. So RDF didn't do anything wrong according to RFC 3023, did it? I think that the proposed replacement for RFC 3023 is incorrect in trying to retroactively specify behaviour for +xml media types that conflicts with existing practcie (i.e. RDF!). Also, my recollection of discussions leading to RFC 3023 is that the +xml was a naming convention to act as an assist to get otherwise-unrecognized documents to be handled by some XML-savvy software rather than being treated as raw octets, and was not intended of itself to impose rigorous processing requirements. Hmmm, I guess I should figure where to send that as a comment on [2]. #g -- [1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt [2] http://community.roxen.com/developers/idocs/drafts/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-00.html ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:48:13 UTC