[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St. Laurent wrote:
> jcowan@reutershealth.com (John Cowan) writes:
> >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?
...>
> I have seen absolutely zero demonstration that the world needs as open
> an approach as the URI-based QName system creates. Having created
> several schemes myself, I think I'm in a decent position to guess what's
> out there.
>
Pehaps we really don't need such an easily extensible XPointer mechanism as
QName schemes ... and if this *does* become needed it could always be added
in XPointer 2.0.
I think there is value in defining a fixed and predefined set of schemes for
application/xml and allowing new schemes to be registered for new
application/*+xml media types in the media type registration.
That assuming that we can have #xpath1 in the base XPointer set -- there are
only a certain number of *good* ways to skin a cat :-)
Jonathan
|
