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

Re: Notes for 2012-10-09 TAG f2f brief session on XML fragment identifiers

From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:34:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGnGFMLZO-EytZ-eybesQpQuvG3jJD6gkNCjsTiK8PN_zsWjSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Fragment identifier syntax is an interesting intermediate point
between specification sequences capturing revisions to formats over
time, and registries capturing namespace growth over time. To me these
two phenomena are very similar.

I wonder if W3C (or the TAG) could take on a commitment to "register"
new fragment id syntaxes as they get churned out, and create a central
place where anyone can go to get (or deliver) the latest scoop on
fragid syntax and semantics? It really looks like a registry problem
to me. Remember there will be a steady stream of fragid "innovations"
as time goes on. It doesn't look like IETF is necessarily the right
place to do this. From the RFC 3986 point of view the fragid syntax
registry would look like an option to which media types could opt in;
to W3C it would be a clearinghouse that would be useful for avoiding
collisions between W3C registered media types (and any others that
cared to play along). That is, it would not have to represent any
"incursion" into 3986's authority.

The registry would be seeded with ncnames, xpointer, media fragments,
and maybe a few others like #!. It could be used to coordinate all
kinds of efforts (or avoid all kinds of collisions), if anyone cared
to use it. It could be implemented as a Recommendation series, as a
curated IANA-like registry, or as something more lightweight such as a

Maybe too expensive, or not useful enough, I don't know. Just thinking aloud.

Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 16:34:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:48 UTC