Re: Generic processing of Fragment IDs in RFC 3023bis

MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:
> Noah,
> 
> Thank you for your mail and providing information about
> application/rdf+xml.  

You are most welcome, thank you for your interest in our comments.

> I  wonder if the TAG has also considered 
> about the possibility of explicitly mentioning application/rdf+xml as an 
> exception of generic handling of fragment identifiers and providing 
> an exhaustive list of such exceptional media types in RFC3023bis.

As Jonathan has already informed you, we did.  Speaking for myself, I 
still think it is a realistic option, and given the degree of concern 
expressed by Norm Walsh and others, I think we should reconsider the 
"exception" option.

Jonathan Rees wrote:

> there is
> little assurance that future +xml registrations won't do the same
> thing as rdf+xml and others, and specify fragid semantics that
> conflict with generic processing.

I don't think this is much of a concern.  If 3023bis is eventually 
published as an RFC, then it can say explicitly: "the exception is for 
application/rdf+xml only;  generic processors should account for this 
exception, and those registering new media types in the family 
application/_____+xml MUST provide that all fragment ids are to be 
interpreted per the generic rules in 3023(bis)"   Thus, anyone 
attempting to register a new type that did not support generic fragids 
would (should) fail in the attempt.

Noah

Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 01:32:07 UTC