- From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: Tony Hansen <tony@maillennium.att.com>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
> Hi Tony, > On 20 Apr 2012, at 08:24, Ned Freed wrote: > >> So I've added these Fragment identifier considerations sections to the > >> suffixes that have an underlying media type registration. > >> > >> Media types using "+json" MUST accept any fragment identifiers > >> defined for "application/json". Specific media types may > >> identify additional fragment identifier considerations. > > > > I like the overall idea but, per the above, MUST is too strong. SHOULD > > is appropriate here, and I'd capitalize the may in the second sentence. > I agree with Ned about softening the wording. The other thing that you could specifically draw out is that fragment identifiers that are classed as errors in the media type related to the suffix may be classified as OK within a specific media type. > The other (word-smithing) comment I'd make is that it's not enough for the specific media type to 'accept' fragment identifiers: they should be processed in the same way as well. > So I'd suggest something like: > Media types using "+json" SHOULD process any fragment identifiers > defined for "application/json" in the same way as defined for that > media type. Specific media types MAY identify additional fragment > identifier considerations and MAY define processing for fragment > identifiers that are classed as errors for "application/json". I think adding this is a good idea. Ned
Received on Sunday, 22 April 2012 02:33:01 UTC