Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?
Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM> Wed, 27 September 2000 14:31 UTC
Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA24785 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA24781 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fastrack.Canada.Sun.COM ([129.155.1.11]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28270 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from canada.sun.com (seteo [129.155.190.61]) by fastrack.Canada.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id KAA16997 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:34:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <39D207BF.44699835@canada.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:44:15 -0400
From: Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Subject: Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?
References: <39D0ABBF.1AA4C5EB@canada.sun.com> <25D0C66E6D25D311B2AC0008C7913EE0010598E2@tdmail2.teledesic.com> <4.2.0.58.J.20000926141535.009ca870@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp> <4.3.2.7.2.20000926112809.02305a10@pop.intergate.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-xml-mime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-xml-mime.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-xml-mime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Tim Bray wrote: > Right. I think that the +xml idiom is useful even if it doesn't guarantee > that such documents are going use XLink/XPointer for outgoing links. Right. I hadn't considered outgoing links, but I don't believe them relevant to this discussion. Only the processor of the document that is referenced should care. > Hmm, it also seems that anything that's of type *+xml has, per definition, > internal structures which can be addressed by xpointer whether the > media-type designers foresaw that or not. -Tim Well, you're right if you're talking about doing this all by hand, outside the context of an architecture, i.e. if you just pass (however you want to do it) an SVG document to an XML processor that supports XPointer, then you can address that SVG with XPointer. No problem. The issue is, in the context of MIME dispatch, what can the *dispatched* processor be guaranteed to interpret for us. >From RFC 2396, 4.1; The semantics of a fragment identifier is a property of the data resulting from a retrieval action, regardless of the type of URI used in the reference. Therefore, the format and interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the retrieval result. Which means that if a processor is dispatched to handle a particular media type, then it is the registration of that media type that defines the normative syntax to be used to reference its internal structure via that processor. In other words, there's no guarantee that the processor can interpret XPointer fragment identifiers. If you want to use the knowledge that the media type ends with "+xml" to dispatch to a {text|application}/xml processor instead, then that will give you XPointer (though draft-murata-xml references it non-normatively, due to the scheduling problem I assume). But a content author is now SOL in terms of being able to guarantee that there's any further dispatch to the SVG processor (see draft-murata-xml section 3, last paragraph), so the image may not get displayed. MB
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? muraw3c
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Mark Baker
- Re: XPointer scheme names (was Re: Conformance va… Martin J. Duerst
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Tim Bray
- XPointer scheme names (was Re: Conformance value … Eve L. Maler
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Simon St.Laurent
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Chris Lilley
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Simon St.Laurent
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Mark Baker
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Martin J. Duerst
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Chris Lilley
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? Mark Baker
- RE: Conformance value of "+xml"? Dan Kohn
- Conformance value of "+xml"? Mark Baker