Re: Comments on new draft of 3023bis (fragments, xpointer)

Martin,

As I said in my reply to Henry, I would like to allow a 
bare minimum as fragment identifiers for application/xml.

> First, I think that the sentence:
> 
> "In particular, the xpointer scheme MUST NOT be specified
> since it is still at the W3C working draft stage."
> 
> is rather inappropriate. There is nothing special to the
> xpointer scheme here; there may be many other schemes that
> are still at a draft stage at one point or another.

I am happy to bless the element scheme only and not mention 
any other schemes.

> On top of that, there would be the question of why
> xpointer needs to be called out specifically if the use
> of any other schemes is prohibited anyway. But I think
> prohibiting the use of any other schemes is a bad idea,
> and is in conflict with the spirit if not the wording
> of the XPointer Framework.

Here we disagree.  Given that XPointer has not been 
successful, I would like to keep fragment identifiers 
as simple as possible.

> 
> I think there are still at least two ways we could define
> things to work:
> 
> a) Other XPointer schemes are allowed but SHOULD/MUST be ignored.
> 
> b) Other XPointer schemes are allowed and MAY be interpreted,
>     but there is no guarantee that any receipient will understand
>     any of them.

Both are attempts to define conformance levels of XPointer 
implementations.  Since the XPointer recommendations do not 
define such conformance levels, I do not want to try at IETF.

Cheers,

-- 
MURATA Makoto <[email protected]>