Martin,
As I said in my reply to Henry, I would like to allow a
bare minimum as fragment identifiers for application/xml.
First, I think that the sentence:
"In particular, the xpointer scheme MUST NOT be specified
since it is still at the W3C working draft stage."
is rather inappropriate. There is nothing special to the
xpointer scheme here; there may be many other schemes that
are still at a draft stage at one point or another.
I am happy to bless the element scheme only and not mention
any other schemes.
On top of that, there would be the question of why
xpointer needs to be called out specifically if the use
of any other schemes is prohibited anyway. But I think
prohibiting the use of any other schemes is a bad idea,
and is in conflict with the spirit if not the wording
of the XPointer Framework.
Here we disagree. Given that XPointer has not been
successful, I would like to keep fragment identifiers
as simple as possible.
I think there are still at least two ways we could define
things to work:
a) Other XPointer schemes are allowed but SHOULD/MUST be ignored.
b) Other XPointer schemes are allowed and MAY be interpreted,
but there is no guarantee that any receipient will understand
any of them.
Both are attempts to define conformance levels of XPointer
implementations. Since the XPointer recommendations do not
define such conformance levels, I do not want to try at IETF.
Cheers,
--
MURATA Makoto <murata(_at_)hokkaido(_dot_)email(_dot_)ne(_dot_)jp>