Re: Generic processing of Fragment IDs in RFC 3023bis

Thank you all for the comments on the TAG's suggestion regarding generic 
processing of fragids.  I have opened TAG ACTION-449 to remind myself to 
schedule discussion of your concerns.  Thank you.

Noah

Norman Walsh wrote:
> Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> writes:
>> If RDF is the "odd one out" then it does seem ... unfortunate. The
>> application/rdf+xml type has a good amount of deployment though, and
>> it seems unfair to change the rules for those publishers by altering
>> the meaning of their existing markup, links and data. Would a
>> compromise design be to include a special case exception for
>> application/rdf+xml in the generic processing rules? Hardly elegant,
>> I'll grant you, but perhaps a reasonable compromise?
> 
> As I said when this thread popped up on the XML Core list[1]:
> 
>   I'm perfectly content with a world where
> 
>   1. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3870.txt defines the fragment identifier
>      scheme for application/rdf+xml representations.
> 
>   2. RFC 3023 defines the fragment identifier scheme for
>      application/*+xml representations.
> 
>   If I see an application/rdf+xml representation and I know about 1, I
>   use it. Otherwise I use 2 and maybe I don't find the fragment or I
>   find the wrong fragment and I move on with my life.
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jun/0018.html
>

Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 16:10:15 UTC