[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
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.