Re: [apps-discuss] W3C TAG Comment on Draft Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-04-17 02:53, Ned Freed wrote:
> ...
> I note that this raises the issue of what to do about fragment identifiers in
> the initial suffix registry document. Fragment identifiers don't really make
> sense for most of the suffixes defined there. The exceptions I see are +xml and
> +json. +json seems simple enough - refer to draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-01.
> ...

I think that would be premature.

The question has come up several times, and I don't think we are near 
any kind of even rough consensus about whether the spec should try to 
define a fragment identifier syntax for "+json" (or even application/json).

> +xml is a bigger issue. This is a document to populate the registry; it is not
> the place to define how fragment identifiers for XML work. But RFC 3023 section
> 5 seems a bit dated. And waiting for a revision for RFC 3023 when there isn't
> even an I-D doesn't sound like a good idea. So dated or not, I guess a
> reference to RFC 3023 is as good as it gets for now.

Indeed.

Best regards, Julian