W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > June 2005

PEX5 suggested rephrase

From: Mike Brown <mike@skew.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:07:35 -0600
Message-ID: <42AE8237.7030009@skew.org>
To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org

It doesn't look to me like PEX5 (initiated by Bjoern Hoehrmann <mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net>) was adequately addressed.

The XInclude spec says

"if the media type of the resource is |text/xml|,
 |application/xml|, or matches the conventions
 |text/*+xml| or |application/*+xml| as described
 in XML Media Types [IETF RFC 3023] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#RFC3023>, the encoding is
 recognized as specified in XML..."

The "resolution" of the issue says that XInclude is clear because RFC 3023 says that all */*+xml media types are XML.

But when I read the text above, I think it means that the encoding is recognized according to XML 1.0 or 1.1 sec. 4.3.3 (I'd prefer these be cited since they are normative references), but only when the media type is one of the few that are listed. In addition, I can read more about those media types in RFC 3023. I would *not* assume that any other media types that RFC 3023 says denote XML are applicable in this rule.

I do not see the harm in making an editorial erratum to produce clearer wording, such as:

"If the media type of the resource indicates,
 according to XML Media Types [RFC 3023], that the
 resource is XML, then the encoding is determined
 as specified in [XML 1.0] or [XML 1.1] section 4.3.3,
 as appropriate."

This would eliminate any ambiguities. If it is necessary to mention text/xml, application/xml, etc., then you can put those in a sentence that starts with "For example, ...".


Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 07:07:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:36 UTC