Re: RDF media type and XPointer [Fwd: Re: An I-D for text/xml, application/xml, etc.]

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