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.


Norman Walsh wrote:
> Dan Brickley <> 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. 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]

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