- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 14:32:08 +0100
- To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
On 7 May 2011, at 05:13, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > This phrasing is a bit vague on whether [fragment identifier] semantics must be >documented< in the media type registration (which certainly seems like good practice in any case), or whether the semantics are just a function of the media type used. Read narrowly, I think RFC 3986 says the latter. That seems to happen a bit in practice. For example, the "Media Fragments URI 1.0" WD [1] and the "URI Fragment Identifiers for the text/csv Media Type" draft [2] specify how fragment identifiers should be interpreted for particular media types outside the relevant media type specifications. It seems to me that for findability, you'd really want the normative definition of fragment identifiers to be referenced from the media type registration, but that it might be in a separate location from the media type specification. Jeni [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/ [2]: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment-00.txt -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Saturday, 7 May 2011 13:32:39 UTC