[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
> I think I've already made it clear that between MIME Content Type
> registrations and the limited number of plausible generic schemes a new
> registry is unnecessary.
Why do only generic schemes count? What about idiosyncratic schemes?
> In any event, perhaps it's time to drop the notion that the world must
> have an XML Fragment Identifier syntax by 31 December 2002.
There's a confusion of levels going on here. It is the IETF, not the
XML Linking WG, who is going to nail down the fragment-identifier syntax
for documents of type text/xml and application/xml. What the Linking WG
has done is indicative but not determinative. The IETF may decide to use
part of it, all of it, or none of it.
Speaking for myself, I would like to see the IETF adopt the framework
document (which includes the use of bare names) and the element() scheme
only; all other schemes would be solely for other document types or for
uses other than fragment identification.
> People definitely need a means of identifying fragments within XML
> documents. It is not at all clear that they should be looking to the
> W3C and its peculiar URI and QName biases for an answer.
OTC, it is very clear that they should not. Only an update RFC to RFC
2396 can do that job. The W3C as such cannot be an IETF member, because
IETF members are individuals.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
|
