W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [apps-discuss] W3C TAG Comment on Draft Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:42:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4F8865A1.6090703@gmx.de>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
CC: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, john+ietf@jck.com, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, tony+mtsuffix@maillennium.att.com
On 2012-04-13 12:34, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> On 13 Apr 2012, at 10:03, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-04-13 10:30, Jeni Tennison wrote:
>>> What we see happening is that fragment identifier syntax is being specified at four levels:
>>>
>>>    1. the general pattern whereby plain name fragment identifiers are used to reference things related to the document, or named fragments within them
>>>    2. generic syntax specified for top-level types (eg Media Fragment URIs [1])
>>
>> Here be dragons.
>>
>> As far as I understand there is no inheritance of fragment identifier syntax from top-level types. The Media Fragment spec essentially has invented it; without coordinating with the IETF.
>
> I think that their assumption was actually that all the image/*, video/* and audio/* types would re-register, referencing the Media Fragment spec. Perhaps that's the best way of handling it, and nothing needs to be said specifically about fragments identifiers for top-level types.
>
> In that case, the media type specification draft would need to point out that other media types within the same top-level type may describe the use of a particular fragment identifier syntax, and that if they do then to make content negotiation between different media types work more smoothly, it's best to adopt that same fragid syntax in new media types rather than inventing a new one.

Makes sense.

Can we turn this into advice for new media type registrations to be 
included into the updated registration spec?

 > ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 13 April 2012 17:43:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC