Re: An I-D for text/xml, application/xml, etc.

MURATA Makoto <> wrote:

> Based on the discussions in this mailing list and W3C TAG, an 
> I-D for XML media types has been created.

First of all, many thanks to Murata-san and co-authors for making this
happen.  Among other things, the common fragment identifier syntax for
XML has been desperately called for.

> Major changes from 
> RFC 3023 are as follows:
>    First, text/xml and text/xml-external-parsed-entity are deprecated.
>    Second, XPointer ([XPointerFramework] and [XPointerElement]) has been
>    added as fragment identifiers for "application/xml".  Third, [XBase]
>    has been added as a mechanism for specifying base URIs.  Fourth, many
>    references are updated.

"5.  Fragment Identifiers" states as follows:

   When an XML-based MIME media type follows the naming convention
   '+xml', the fragment identifier syntax for this media type SHALL
   include the fragment identifier syntax for application/xml and
   application/xml-external-parsed-entity.  It MAY further allow other
   schemes such as the xmlns scheme and other schemes.

   If an XML-based media type requires a fragment identifier syntax
   other than XPointer, the media type SHOULD NOT follow the naming
   convention '+xml'.

I think applying this requirement to media types such as
'application/xhtml+xml' would be straightforward, and I'm reasonably
certain that RFC 3236 [1] will be updated accordingly in due course.

However, I'm not quite sure whether this is really applicable to
'application/rdf+xml' [2].  What does #element(/1/2) mean in
'application/rdf+xml'?  Is there any conflict between RDF's concept
of fragment identifiers [3] and this requirement?


Masayasu Ishikawa /
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium

Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 01:04:47 UTC