- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 04:58:16 +0100
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
* Tim Bray wrote: >Which is the correct mailing list to discuss the 3023 revision? ietf-xml-mime@imc.org and ietf-types@iana.org. >I just got around to reading >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-00.txt >(from last July) and was fairly astounded at section 5, saying that use >of "+xml" in a media type implies a commitment to support XPointer. > >Questions: >Are there any "+xml" media type for which this is not the case? It is the case for most +xml types as most registrations do not discuss fragment identifiers at all (and few types have a registration). >Is it the case that if a +xml media type doesn't specify a #fragid >semantic, RFC3023bis normatively creates one? That would not be acceptable, either there is one single generic rule for specific fragment identifiers for all /xml and +xml types or there are multiple rules which are then out of scope of that document. Having some kind of fallback specification would just invite people making false assumptions and (thus) defeats the purpose of allowing specific types to redefine the meaning of the relevant fragment identifiers (it would likely be that some applications assume the fallback and other applications do what the actual registration requires which would not be interoperable).
Received on Sunday, 21 November 2004 03:58:49 UTC