Re: Including 'fragment identifier semantics' in MIME media type registration?


Regarding "good policy", I would encourage people to make fragment
identifiers, where possible, refer to 'anchor' style identifiers (i.e.,
using an extensibility mechanism like the 'id' attribute in XML, 'name' in
HTML, and so forth) rather than into the syntax and structure of the
format (as XPointer allows, through use of XPath). Doing so increases the
chance that a fragment identifier could be valid and useful across
multiple formats.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Masinter" <>
To: <>; <>; <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 8:57 AM
Subject: Including 'fragment identifier semantics' in MIME media type

> The URI specification notes that the interpretation
> of a fragment identifier (the part of a URI reference
> after a '#') depends on the media type.
> However, the template for media type registration
> doesn't have a place to document the meaning of
> fragment identifiers within the media type.
> Originally, fragment identifiers were only used within
> HTML documents, so the point was somewhat moot. However,
> now there are several specifications -- mainly from
> the W3C -- that use fragment identifiers more explicitly,
> as well as proposals for changing or adding semantics
> for fragment identifiers for existing media types
> (such as a recent proposal for a fragment identifier
> for plain text.)
> Should the registration form for media types include
> a statement about the semantics of fragment identifiers
> for that media type?
> Is there a consistent policy or design for 'good'
> fragment identifier use?
> Larry
> --

Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 12:37:59 UTC