- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:22:44 +0200
- To: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
- Cc: MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>, www-tag@w3.org
On Monday, July 26, 2004, 7:04:26 AM, Masayasu wrote: MI> I think applying this requirement to media types such as MI> 'application/xhtml+xml' would be straightforward, and I'm reasonably MI> certain that RFC 3236 [1] will be updated accordingly in due course. MI> However, I'm not quite sure whether this is really applicable to MI> 'application/rdf+xml' [2]. What does #element(/1/2) mean in MI> 'application/rdf+xml'? Its very clear what it means. Its not at all clear that it is a useful thing to point to. This is likely to result in pushback because implementors don't like implementing things that can be done but have no use. MI> Is there any conflict between RDF's concept MI> of fragment identifiers [3] and this requirement? There isn't a conflict, in that application/rdf+xml can add its fragid syntax to the +xml fragid syntax. There may be a conflict in implementors saying they don't want to add the +xml fragid syntax. Or there might be support from implementors who like to have a uniform fragid syntax in a multinamespace, comound documents scenario. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 16:22:46 UTC