< draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment-01.txt		draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment-02.txt >
	Network Working Group M. Hausenblas		Network Working Group M. Hausenblas
	Internet-Draft DERI, NUI Galway		Internet-Draft DERI, NUI Galway
	Updates: 4180 (if approved) E. Wilde		Updates: 4180 (if approved) E. Wilde
	Intended status: Standards Track EMC Corporation		Intended status: Standards Track EMC Corporation
	Expires: July 2, 2013 J. Tennison		Expires: July 16, 2013 J. Tennison
	Open Data Institute		Open Data Institute
	December 29, 2012		January 12, 2013
	URI Fragment Identifiers for the text/csv Media Type		URI Fragment Identifiers for the text/csv Media Type
	draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment-01		draft-hausenblas-csv-fragment-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	This memo defines URI fragment identifiers for text/csv MIME		This memo defines URI fragment identifiers for text/csv MIME
	entities. These fragment identifiers make it possible to refer to		entities. These fragment identifiers make it possible to refer to
	parts of a text/csv MIME entity, identified by cell, row, column, or		parts of a text/csv MIME entity, identified by row, column, or cell.
	slice.		Fragment identification can use single items, or ranges.
	Note to Readers		Note to Readers
	This draft should be discussed on the apps-discuss mailing list [12].		This draft should be discussed on the apps-discuss mailing list [11].
			Online access to all versions and files is available at github [12].
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on July 2, 2013.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 16, 2013.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. What is text/csv? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. What is text/csv? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.2. Why text/csv Fragment Identifiers? . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.2. Why text/csv Fragment Identifiers? . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.2.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.2.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.2.2. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2.2. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.3. Incremental Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.3. Incremental Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.4. Notation Used in this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.4. Notation Used in this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2. Fragment Identification Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Fragment Identification Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.1. Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.1. Selections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.2. Row-based selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2. Row-based selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.3. Column-based selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.3. Column-based selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.4. Cell-based selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.4. Cell-based selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.5. Slice-based selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.5. Multi-Selections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3. Fragment Identification Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. Fragment Identification Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. Fragment Identifier Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. Fragment Identifier Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.1. Syntax Errors in Fragment Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1. Syntax Errors in Fragment Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2. Semantics of Fragment Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7.1. From -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7.1. From -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7.2. From -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	8.2. Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		8.2. Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
			Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This memo updates the text/csv media type defined in RFC 4180 [1] by		This memo updates the text/csv media type defined in RFC 4180 [1] by
	defining URI fragment identifiers for text/csv MIME entities.		defining URI fragment identifiers for text/csv MIME entities.
	This section gives an introduction to the general concepts of text/		This section gives an introduction to the general concepts of text/
	csv MIME entities and URI fragment identifiers, and discusses the		csv MIME entities and URI fragment identifiers, and discusses the
	need for fragment identifiers for text/csv and deployment issues.		need for fragment identifiers for text/csv and deployment issues.
	Section 2 discusses the principles and methods on which this memo is		Section 2 discusses the principles and methods on which this memo is
	based. Section 3 defines the syntax, and Section 4 discusses		based. Section 3 defines the syntax, and Section 4 discusses
	processing of text/csv fragment identifiers.		processing of text/csv fragment identifiers.
	1.1. What is text/csv?		1.1. What is text/csv?
	Internet Media Types (often referred to as "MIME types") as defined		Internet Media Types (often referred to as "MIME types") as defined
	in RFC 2045 [2] and RFC 2046 [3] are used to identify different types		in RFC 2045 [2] and RFC 2046 [3] are used to identify different types
	and sub-types of media. The text/csv media type is defined in RFC		and sub-types of media. The text/csv media type is defined in RFC
	4180 [1], using US-ASCII [9] as the default character encoding (other		4180 [1], using US-ASCII [8] as the default character encoding (other
	character encodings can be used as well).		character encodings can be used as well). Apart from a media type
			parameter for specifying the character encoding ("charset"), there is
			a second media type parameter ("header") that indicates whether there
			is a header row in the CSV document or not.
	1.2. Why text/csv Fragment Identifiers?		1.2. Why text/csv Fragment Identifiers?
	URIs are the identification mechanism for resources on the Web. The		URIs are the identification mechanism for resources on the Web. The
	URI syntax specified in RFC 3986 [4] optionally includes a so-called		URI syntax specified in RFC 3986 [4] optionally includes a so-called
	"fragment identifier", separated by a number sign ('#'). The		"fragment identifier", separated by a number sign ("#"). The
	fragment identifier consists of additional reference information to		fragment identifier consists of additional reference information to
	be interpreted by the user agent after the retrieval action has been		be interpreted by the client after the retrieval action has been
	successfully completed. The semantics of a fragment identifier is a		successfully completed. The semantics of a fragment identifier is a
	property of the data resulting from a retrieval action, regardless of		property of the media type resulting from a retrieval action,
	the type of URI used in the reference. Therefore, the format and		regardless of the URI scheme used in the URI reference. Therefore,
	interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type		the format and interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on
	of the retrieval result.		the media type of the retrieval result.
	1.2.1. Motivation		1.2.1. Motivation
	Similar to the motivation in RFC 5147 [10], referring to specific		Similar to the motivation in RFC 5147 [9], which defines fragment
	parts of a resource can be very useful, because it enables users and		identifiers for plain text files, referring to specific parts of a
			resource can be very useful, because it enables users and
	applications to create more specific references. Users can create		applications to create more specific references. Users can create
	references to the part they really are interested in or want to talk		references to the part they really are interested in or want to talk
	about, rather than always pointing to a complete resource. Even		about, rather than always pointing to a complete resource. Even
	though it is suggested that fragment identification methods are		though it is suggested that fragment identification methods are
	specified in a media type's MIME registration (see [11]), many media		specified in a media type's MIME registration (see [10]), many media
	types do not have fragment identification methods associated with		types do not have fragment identification methods associated with
	them.		them.
	Fragment identifiers are only useful if supported by the client,		Fragment identifiers are only useful if supported by the client,
	because they are only interpreted by the client. Therefore, a new		because they are only interpreted by the client. Therefore, a new
	fragment identification method will require some time to be adopted		fragment identification method will require some time to be adopted
	by clients, and older clients will not support it. However, because		by clients, and older clients will not support it. However, because
	the URI still works even if the fragment identifier is not supported		the URI still works even if the fragment identifier is not supported
	(the resource is retrieved, but the fragment identifier is not		(the resource is retrieved, but the fragment identifier is not
	interpreted), rapid adoption is not highly critical to ensure the		interpreted), rapid adoption is not highly critical to ensure the
	success of a new fragment identification method.		success of a new fragment identification method.
	1.2.2. Use Cases		1.2.2. Use Cases
	Fragment identifiers for text/csv as defined in this memo make it		Fragment identifiers for text/csv as defined in this memo make it
	possible to refer to specific parts of a text/csv MIME entity. Use		possible to refer to specific parts of a text/csv MIME entity. Use
	cases include, but are not limited to, discovery (what column		cases include, but are not limited to, selecting a part for visual
	headings or how many rows are available), selecting a part for visual
	rendering, stream processing, making assertions about a certain value		rendering, stream processing, making assertions about a certain value
	(provenance, confidence, etc.), or data integration.		(provenance, confidence, comments, etc.), or data integration.
	1.3. Incremental Deployment		1.3. Incremental Deployment
	As long as text/csv fragment identifiers are not supported		As long as text/csv fragment identifiers are not supported
	universally, it is important to consider the implications of		universally, it is important to consider the implications of
	incremental deployment. Clients (for example, Web browsers) not		incremental deployment. Clients (for example, Web browsers) not
	supporting the text/csv fragment identifier described in this memo		supporting the text/csv fragment identifier described in this memo
	will work with URI references to text/csv MIME entities, but they		will work with URI references to text/csv MIME entities, but they
	will fail to to understand the identification of the sub-resource		will fail to understand the identification of the sub-resource
	specified by the fragment identifier, and thus will behave as if the		specified by the fragment identifier, and thus will behave as if the
	complete resource was referenced. This is a reasonable fallback		complete resource was referenced. This is a reasonable fallback
	behavior, and in general users should take into account the		behavior, and in general users should take into account the
	possibility that a program interpreting a given URI will fail to		possibility that a program interpreting a given URI will fail to
	interpret the fragment identifier part. Since fragment identifier		interpret the fragment identifier part. Since fragment identifier
	evaluation is local to the client (and happens after retrieving the		evaluation is local to the client (and happens after retrieving the
	MIME entity), there is no reliable way for a server to determine		MIME entity), there is no reliable way for a server to determine
	whether a requesting client is using a URI containing a fragment		whether a requesting client is using a URI containing a fragment
	identifier.		identifier.
	1.4. Notation Used in this Memo		1.4. Notation Used in this Memo
	The capitalized key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",		The capitalized key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
	"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
	2119 [5].		2119 [5].
	2. Fragment Identification Methods		2. Fragment Identification Methods
	This memo specifies fragment identification using following methods:		This memo specifies fragment identification using following methods:
	header, row, column, cell and slice. As of RFC 4180 [1] the header		"row" for row selections, "col" for columns selections, and "cell"
	line is optional and hence the application of the method is dependent		for cell selections.
	on the actual format of the text/csv MIME entity.
	Throughout the sections below the following table in CSV is used:		Throughout the sections below, the following example table in CSV
			(having 7 rows, including one header row, and 3 columns) is used:
	date,temperature,place		date,temperature,place
	2011-01-01,1,Galway		2011-01-01,1,Galway
	2011-01-02,-1,Galway		2011-01-02,-1,Galway
	2011-01-03,0,Galway		2011-01-03,0,Galway
	2011-01-01,6,Berkeley		2011-01-01,6,Berkeley
	2011-01-02,8,Berkeley		2011-01-02,8,Berkeley
	2011-01-03,5,Berkeley		2011-01-03,5,Berkeley
	2.1. Header		2.1. Selections
	For discovery purposes, the "head" scheme is used, returning the
	first row. If the "header" parameter per RFC 4180 [1] is available
	and its value is "present" the client can reliable determine that it
	is a header.
	http://example.com/data.csv#head
	Applied to the reference table, the above CSV fragment would select
	the header row, yielding:
	date,temperature,place
	2.2. Row-based selection		2.2. Row-based selection
	To select a specific record, the "row" scheme followed by a single		To select a specific record, the "row" scheme followed by a single
	number is used (the first record has the index 0). If the fragment		number is used (the first row has the position 0).
	is given in the form row:*, then no record is selected but the		http://example.com/data.csv#row=3
	overall number of records is returned.
	http://example.com/data.csv#row:2
	The above CSV fragment yields: while the following computes the		The above CSV fragment yields:
	number of records (which equals 6, in the reference table)
	2011-01-03,0,Galway		2011-01-03,0,Galway
	The following computes the number of records (which equals 6, in the
	reference table):
	http://example.com/data.csv#row:*
	2.3. Column-based selection		2.3. Column-based selection
	To select values from a certain column, the "col" scheme, followed		To select values from a certain column, the "col" scheme, followed by
	either by a single number or the value of a header field is used.		a position:
	http://example.com/data.csv#col:temperature		http://example.com/data.csv#col=1
	The above CSV fragment addresses a column by name, yielding:
	1,-1,0,6,8,5
	A column can also be addressed by position as shown in the next
	example:
	http://example.com/data.csv#col:2
	The above CSV fragment selects the third column:		The above CSV fragment addresses the second column, yielding the
	Galway,Galway,Galway,Berkeley,Berkeley,Berkeley		column:
			temperature
			1
			-1
			0
			6
			8
			5
	2.4. Cell-based selection		2.4. Cell-based selection
	To select a particular field within a row, use the "cell" scheme,		To select particular fields, use the "cell" scheme, followed by a row
	followed by a row number, a comma, and either a single number or the		number, a comma, and a column number.
	value of a header field.		http://example.com/data.csv#cell=3,0
	http://example.com/data.csv#cell:2,date
	The above CSV fragment addresses the field in the date column within		The above CSV fragment addresses the field in the first column within
	the third row, yeilding:		the fourth row, yeilding:
	2011-01-03		2011-01-03
	A field can also be addressed by position as shown in the next		It is also possible to select ranges that have more than one row or
	example:		column, in which case the cell selection uses the same range syntax
	http://example.com/data.csv#cell:3,1		as for row and column selections. For these selections, the syntax
			uses the upper-lefthand call as the starting point of the selection,
	The above CSV fragment selects the second column in the fourth row:		followed by a minus sign, and then the lower-righthand cell as the
	6		end point of the selection.
			http://example.com/data.csv#cell=3,0-5,1
	2.5. Slice-based selection		The above CSV fragment selects a region that starts at the fourth row
			and the first column, and ends at the sixth row and the second
			column:
			2011-01-03,0
			2011-01-01,6
			2011-01-02,8
	To select a part of table, called a slice in the following, the		2.5. Multi-Selections
	"where" scheme is used. The allowed values are a comma-separated
	list of header fields with corresponding field values in the table.
	http://example.com/data.csv#where:date=2011-01-01
	The above CSV fragment selects a slice, yielding another CSV table as		Row, column, and cell selections can make more than one selection, in
	follows:		which case the individual selections are separated by semicolons. In
	temperature,place		these cases, the resulting fragment may be a disjoint fragment, such
	1,Galway		as the selection "#row=2;5" for the example CSV, which would select
	6,Berkeley		the third and the sixth row. It is up to the user agent to decide
			how to handle disjoint fragments, but since they are allowed, user
			agents should be prepared to handle disjoint fragments.
	3. Fragment Identification Syntax		3. Fragment Identification Syntax
	The syntax for the text/csv fragment identifiers is as follows.		The syntax for the text/csv fragment identifiers is as follows.
	The following syntax definition uses ABNF as defined in RFC 4234 [6],		The following syntax definition uses ABNF as defined in RFC 4234 [6],
	including the rules DIGIT and HEXDIG. The mime-charset rule is		including the rule DIGIT.
	defined in RFC 2978 [7].
	NOTE: In the descriptions that follow, specified text values MUST be		NOTE: In the descriptions that follow, specified text values MUST be
	used exactly as given, using exactly the indicated lower-case		used exactly as given, using exactly the indicated lower-case
	letters. In this respect, the ABNF usage differs from [6].		letters. In this respect, the ABNF usage differs from [6].
	csv-fragment = headersel / wheresel / colsel / rowsel / cellsel		csv-fragment = rowsel / colsel / cellsel
	headersel = "head"		rowsel = "row=" singlespec 0*( ";" singlespec)
	rowsel = "row:" rowspec		colsel = "col=" singlespec 0*( ";" singlespec)
	colsel = "col:" colspec		cellsel = "cell=" cellspec 0*( ";" cellspec)
	cellsel = "cell:" cellspec		singlespec = position [ "-" position ]
	wheresel = "where:" kvpairs		cellspec = cellrow "," cellcol [ "-" cellrow "," cellcol ]
	kvpairs = 1*( col "=" val 0*1(",") )		cellrow = position
	col = 1*TEXTDATA		cellcol = position
	val = 1*TEXTDATA		position = number / "*"
	colspec = column		number = 1*( DIGIT )
	rowspec = "*" / rownum
	cellspec = rownum "," column
	column = 1*TEXTDATA / 1*DIGIT
	rownum = 1*DIGIT
	TEXTDATA = %x23-2B / %x2D-3C / %x3E-7E
	DIGIT = %x30-39
	4. Fragment Identifier Processing		4. Fragment Identifier Processing
	Applications implementing support for the mechanism described in this		Applications implementing support for the mechanism described in this
	memo MUST behave as described in the following sections.		memo MUST behave as described in the following sections.
	4.1. Syntax Errors in Fragment Identifiers		4.1. Syntax Errors in Fragment Identifiers
	If a fragment identifier contains a syntax error (i.e., does not		If a fragment identifier contains a syntax error (i.e., does not
	conform to the syntax specified in Section 3), then it MUST be		conform to the syntax specified in Section 3), then it MUST be
	ignored by clients. Clients MUST NOT make any attempt to correct or		ignored by clients. Clients MUST NOT make any attempt to correct or
	guess fragment identifiers. Syntax errors MAY be reported by		guess fragment identifiers. Syntax errors MAY be reported by
	clients.		clients.
			4.2. Semantics of Fragment Identifiers
			Rows and columns in CSV are counted from zero. Positions thus refer
			to the rows and columns starting from position 0, which identifies
			the first row or column of a CSV. The special character "*" can be
			used to refer to the last rwo or column of a CSV, thus allowing
			fragment identifiers to easily identify ranges that extend to the
			last row or column.
			If single selections refer to non-existing rows or columns (i.e.,
			beyond the size of of the CSV), they MUST be ignored.
			If ranges extend beyond the size of the CSV (by extending to row or
			columns beyond the size of the CSV), they MUST be interpreted to only
			extend to the actual size of the CSV.
			If selections of ranges of rows or columns or selections of cell
			ranges are specified in a way so that they select "inversely" (i.e.,
			"#row=10-5" or "#cell=10,10-5,5"), they MUST be ignored.
			Each specification of an identified region is processed
			independently, and ignored specifications (because of reason listed
			in the previous paragraphs) to not cause the whole fragment
			identifier to fail, they just mean that this single specification is
			ignored. For the example file, the fragment identifier "#row=0-1,4-
			3,12-15" does identify the frist two rows, because the second
			specification is an "inverse" one and thus ignored, and the third
			specification selects rows beyond the actual size of the CSV.
			The result of evaluating the complete fragment identifier joins all
			the successfully evaluated identified parts, and then treats this
			joint fragment as the single identified fragment. This fragment can
			be disjoint because of multiple selections. Multiple selections also
			can result in overlapping individual parts, and it is up to the user
			agent how to process such a fragment, and whether the individual
			parts are still made accessible (i.e., visualized in visual user
			agents), or are presented as one unit. For example, the fragment
			identifier "#row=2-5,3-4" contains a second identified part that is
			completely contained in the first identified part. Whether a user
			agent maintains this selection as two parts, or simply signals that
			the identified fragment spans from the third to the sixth row, is up
			for the user agent to decide.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	Note to RFC Editor: Please change this section to read as follows		Note to RFC Editor: Please change this section to read as follows
	after the IANA action has been completed: "IANA has added a reference		after the IANA action has been completed: "IANA has added a reference
	to this specification in the text/csv Media Type registration."		to this specification in the text/csv Media Type registration."
	IANA is requested to update the registration of the MIME Media type		IANA is requested to update the registration of the MIME Media type
	text/csv at http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/ with		text/csv at http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/ with
	the fragment identifier defined in this memo by adding a reference to		the fragment identifier defined in this memo by adding a reference to
	this memo (with the appropriate RFC number once it is known).		this memo (with the appropriate RFC number once it is known).
	skipping to change at page 8, line 18		skipping to change at page 8, line 36
	software not implementing them differs in behavior, and the fact that		software not implementing them differs in behavior, and the fact that
	different software may show documents or fragments to users in		different software may show documents or fragments to users in
	different ways, can lead to misunderstandings on the part of users.		different ways, can lead to misunderstandings on the part of users.
	Such misunderstandings might be exploited in a way similar to		Such misunderstandings might be exploited in a way similar to
	spoofing or phishing.		spoofing or phishing.
	...		...
	Implementers and users of fragment identifiers for CSV text should		Implementers and users of fragment identifiers for CSV text should
	also be aware of the security considerations in RFC 3986 [4] and RFC		also be aware of the security considerations in RFC 3986 [4] and RFC
	3987 [8].		3987 [7].
	7. Change Log		7. Change Log
	Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication.		Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication.
	7.1. From -00 to -01		7.1. From -01 to -02
			o Removed slices ("#where:") as fragment identification method.
			o Removed any special support for headers, which means that they are
			now treated as a regular (the first) row (if a header row is
			present).
			o Changed semantics and syntax to allow multiple selection of rows,
			columns, and cells, and to allow ranges of rows and columns.
			7.2. From -00 to -01
	o Added cell-based selections.		o Added cell-based selections.
	o Added Jeni Tennison as author; updated Erik Wilde's affiliation to		o Added Jeni Tennison as author; updated Erik Wilde's affiliation to
	EMC.		EMC.
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	skipping to change at page 9, line 9		skipping to change at page 9, line 40
	[4] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform		[4] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
	Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986,		Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986,
	January 2005.		January 2005.
	[5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement		[5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
	Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.		Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[6] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax		[6] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
	Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.		Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
	[7] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration		[7] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
	Procedures", BCP 19, October 2000.
	[8] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
	Identifiers (IRI)", RFC 3987, January 2005.		Identifiers (IRI)", RFC 3987, January 2005.
	8.2. Non-Normative References		8.2. Non-Normative References
	[9] ANSI X3.4-1986, "Coded Character Set - 7-Bit American National		[8] ANSI X3.4-1986, "Coded Character Set - 7-Bit American National
	Standard Code for Information Interchange", STD 63, RFC 3629,		Standard Code for Information Interchange", STD 63, RFC 3629,
	1992.		1992.
	[10] Wilde, E. and M. Duerst, "URI Fragment Identifiers for the		[9] Wilde, E. and M. Duerst, "URI Fragment Identifiers for the
	text/plain Media Type", RFC 5147, April 2008.		text/plain Media Type", RFC 5147, April 2008.
	[11] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and		[10] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
	Registration Procedures", RFC 4288, December 2005.		Registration Procedures", RFC 4288, December 2005.
	URIs		URIs
	[12] <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>		[11] <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>
			[12] <https://github.com/dret/I-D/tree/master/csv-fragment>
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements		Appendix A. Acknowledgements
	Thanks for comments and suggestions provided by Richard, Ian, Gannon.		Thanks for comments and suggestions provided by Richard, Ian, Gannon.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Michael Hausenblas		Michael Hausenblas
	DERI, NUI Galway		DERI, NUI Galway
	IDA Business Park		IDA Business Park
End of changes. 41 change blocks.
	136 lines changed or deleted		175 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.39p1. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/