|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: more QName madness
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > jcowan@r... (John Cowan) writes: > >I think no one would object to this solution with the exception of > >IANA, which would have the job of actually maintaining the registry. > >IANA is overworked and underfunded. > > I'm not convinced that the problem is large enough to require IANA > activity. MIME Media Type registrations already go through IANA, and > have associated RFCs which define fragment identifiers. In some sense, > the IETF already has this problem well-covered for most cases. Yes, the way I think about it is that anyone registering a media type of the form: application/foo+xml might define a fragement identifier syntax which uses the suggested syntax as in http://www.rddl.org/fragment-syntax which is dated but might be updated given the recent work in XPointer. Ultimately the syntax used for fragment identifiers is media type dependent, XPointer provides a solution for application/xml (and an extension mechanism), so ultimately if you are willing to go to the trouble to define your own media type, you can have whatever syntax you like. I am not sure that XPointer *prevents* you for doing that but if it does, then *you* (and your coauthors) might change that by modifying http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt appropriately. Perhaps RFC 3023 is due for an updating (concerning the fragment identifier syntax and semantics) now that XPointer has made more progress. Jonathan http://www.jonathanborden-md.com http://www.erieneurosurgery.com http://www.openhealth.org
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








