Lists Home |
Date Index |
"Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Not according to the pretensions of the XPointer Framework PR:
> The framework is intended to be used as a basis for fragment identifiers
> for any resource whose Internet media type is one of text/xml,
> application/xml, text/xml-external-parsed-entity, or
> application/xml-external-parsed-entity. Other XML-based media types are
> also encouraged to use this framework in defining their own fragment
> identifier languages.
> RFC 3023 is cited normatively but no explicit reference to IETF process
> is made.
> Is "is intended" just a suggestion? Could be.
Absolutely. Sorry for any confusion caused by the wording. If and
when some or all of the XPointer Proposed Recommendations become full
Recommendations, then the W3C _may_ make a recommendation/request to
the IETF that all or a part of those Recommedations be adopted as the
frag-id syntax for the above listed media types. That's all the W3C
can do, as the lines below underline.
> >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.
> Correct, at least from an IETF perspective.
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: email@example.com
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]