- From: Tony Hansen <tony@maillennium.att.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:44:41 -0400
- 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