- From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Tony Hansen <tony@maillennium.att.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.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. AFAICT this covers every point that has been raised. Ned
Received on Sunday, 22 April 2012 02:34:24 UTC