From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris(_at_)w3(_dot_)org]
Sent: Friday, 25 February, 2005 7:15
To: Paul Grosso
Cc: Martin Duerst; Henry S. Thompson; ietf-xml-mime(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org;
MURATA Makoto; Philippe Le Hegaret
Subject: Re: Comments on new draft of 3023bis (fragments, xpointer)
On Friday, February 25, 2005, 5:20:01 AM, Paul wrote:
PG> That's why I think it is important to say that the
PG> fragment identifier syntax for the XML type is just
PG> the XPointer Framework and Element() scheme, and
PG> nothing else--all other schemes must be ignored.
To be clear - you are saying that
- for application/xml
- for unknown +xml media types being processed as xml
the fragment identifier syntax for the XML type is just the XPointer
Framework and Element() scheme, and nothing else--all other
schemes must be ignored.
Correct.
"Ignored" needs to be further defined (ie, it does not cause
an error).
I mean "ignored" in the sense that is defined in the XPointer Framework
spec which explains how to handle an xpointer with schemes that are
not recognized/supported. (I agree we need to get precise wording,
but I hope what I'm trying to say is clear by reference to the
XPointer Framework spec.)
And to be clear, you are *not* saying that
- any +xml media type is forbidden from defining its own, richer,
fragment identifier syntax in addition to that defined fro +xml as a
whole.
Right?
Correct--another media type can say whatever it wants in this regard.
paul