Re: Generic processing of Fragment IDs in RFC 3023bis

Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> writes:
> So, I'm tempted to suggest that 3032bis should require that ____+xml
> registrations explicitly commit to the generic syntax.  I suppose one
> would have to do a hand wave about existing registrations, but we
> might do our best at least to catch re-registrations and new
> registrations.

I find that unsatisfactory. It leaves generic XML processors out in
the cold once again by expecting them to be aware of all of the media
type registrations for all +xml formats.

By creating a +xml format, you're explicitly signing on to a bunch of
constraints. The fragment identifier constraints for XML have been
informally understood but not standardized for years, that's a bug
that 3023bis should resolve.

If there are one or two existing +xml formats that have fragment
identifier semantics that are inconsistent with application/xml, I'm
content to have them enumerated.

Going forward, I think language designers should consider the tradeoff
between a +xml media type and a specialty fragment identifier syntax
and choose their media type accordingly.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | What good is a can of worms if you
http://nwalsh.com/            | never open it?--Bob Arning