- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:00:40 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:28 AM, MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) > <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote: >> Noah, >> >> Thank you for your mail and providing information about >> application/rdf+xml. 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. > > Interesting you should ask. We did consider four options and this was > one of them. I think Larry on a recent telcon gave the best rationale > for preferring the solution we did over this one, which is that (a) > there is an unknown number of other +xml registrations that also > conflict with this kind of generic processing, FWIW, I had a quick look at this last night. There are 267 registered application/*+xml types, and of the ten random types I looked at, two deferred to 3023, and the remaining eight said nothing about fragment identifiers. Also, AFAICT, 3023 doesn't prescribe any generic interpretation, it merely points to XPointer informatively as a work in progress; As of today, no established specifications define identifiers for XML media types. However, a working draft published by W3C, namely "XML Pointer Language (XPointer)", attempts to define fragment identifiers for text/xml and application/xml. The current specification for XPointer is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr. Mark.
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 15:01:14 UTC