Re: Generic processing of Fragment IDs in RFC 3023bis

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> writes:

> On Oct 5, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
>
>> Roy Fielding writes:
>> 
>>> Where ambiguity might be present, bare name fragments always refer
>>> to the semantics defined by the specific media type.
>> 
>> My impression is that Norm's preference is:
>> 
>> Where ambiguity might be present, bare name fragments always refer
>> to the semantics defined for generic processing per 3023bis; thus
>> the semantics for each specific media type SHOULD be the same as
>> the generic, at least insofar as the syntax overlaps.
>
> I think that would contradict his category (1), but I see your point.

Category (1) in my previous message doesn't come into play because it
is for a media type that's not a +xml media type. I concede that I've
got no clue what to do in that case if I don't recognize the media
type.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
www.marklogic.com