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: Tony Hansen <tony@maillennium.att.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:44:41 -0400
Message-ID: <4F91A089.6070308@maillennium.att.com>
CC: apps-discuss@ietf.org, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 4/20/2012 6:30 AM, Jeni Tennison and others wrote:
 > ...

Thanks for all the comments.

This is what I've come up with that seems to satisfy the concerns I've 
heard expressed so far:

Media types using "+json" SHOULD process any fragment identifiers 
defined for "application/json" in the same way as defined for that media 
type. (At publication of this document, there is no fragment 
identification syntax defined for "application/json".) Specific media 
types using "+json" MAY identify additional fragment identifier 
considerations, MAY define processing for fragment identifiers that are 
classed as errors for "application/json" and MAY designate fragment 
identifiers defined for "application/json" that SHOULD NOT be used.

Same text for +fastinfoset, +wbxml and +zip. The note I added for +xml 
is similar:

Media types using "+xml" SHOULD process any fragment identifiers defined 
for "application/xml" in the same way as defined for that media type. 
(At publication of this document, the fragment identification syntax 
considerations for "application/xml" are defined in <xref 
target='RFC3023'/>.) Specific media types using "+xml" MAY identify 
additional fragment identifier considerations, MAY define processing for 
fragment identifiers that are classed as errors for "application/xml" 
and MAY designate fragment identifiers defined for "application/xml" 
that SHOULD NOT be used.



	Tony Hansen
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 17:45:53 UTC

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