Re: Rough sketch for an I-D (a successor of RFC 3023)

At 07:51 2003 10 31 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:

>On Oct 31, 2003, at 4:46 AM, MURATA Makoto wrote:
>
>>However, I still would like to know if the TAG (or W3C in general) is willing
>>to propose fragment identifiers as part of the next version of the XML media
>>types RFCs.
>
>I assume by "next version" you mean the one after this thing we're currently working on?

I would read Makoto to be referring to the one we're currently
working on.

>Speaking personally for myself, I don't see the need for fragment identifiers for */xml since the various */*+xml define their own fragids usually and I don't see much */xml being served.  But of others see the need I won't make a big noise. -Tim

I don't know what the right answer is, but I note that one 
of the key reasons this issue is coming up now is that the
XInclude spec was refused PR mostly on the basis of the fact
that there was no official fragment identifier syntax for XML.

(Makoto, correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that was a key
part of your objection to XInclude, and it was your objection
that was key in having the XInclude PR refused.)

XInclude has expected to go to a second Last Call within the
next week or two with a syntactic change that attempts to avoid
the issues of there not being an official fragment identifier
syntax (we're putting what for all the world looks like the
fragment identifier into a separate attribute), but it sure
feels a lot like a fragment identifier for XML to me.  All of
which leads me to feel there should be an official fragment
identifier syntax for XML resources (as the XLink Working Group
recommended almost a year ago now).

paul

Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 11:15:41 UTC