Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?

> The concern with fragment identifiers was that certain media types developed
> before the XLink spec (I remember SVG being mentioned), might not confirm to
> the later linking spec.  If all it takes to conform to the linking spec is
> to be valid XML, than by definition all +xml media types do so, so there's
> no problem with the current draft.  If something extra is required, than the
> SHOULD language is appropriate since some media types may not do so, so
> there's still no problem with the current draft.

After thinking about this some more, I realized that it was fragment
identifiers alone that I was concerned about.  It's too bad XPointer
couldn't be ready in time for this draft to reference normatively, but I
accept your explanation as resolving my issue.

Thanks for the clarification.

MB