Summary: Needs a YES. Has a DISCUSS.
I have some small issue which need fixing before I would recommend approval of this document: 1) ABNF for "manifestation" in Attachment A doesn't match the same from Section 6.7: In 6.7: manifestation = format ":" editor [(":" component [":" feature]) / (":" "all" ":" feature)] In Attachment A: manifestation = format *(";" specification) ":" editor *(";" specification) [(":" component [":" feature]) / (":" "all" ":" feature)] It looks like you updated the definition in Section 6.7, but forgot to update the Attachment A to match. Please advise how you intend to fix this.
1) In 6.7: Note that the value "all" can be expressed by language-dependent equivalents. The ABNF seems to suggest that "all" is always supported. Is the word "also" missing after "can"? 2) In 6.8: Using a different separator ("~") from the document name, the partition ID is not withheld by the browser but it is transmitted to the resolution process. This enables the resolver to retrieve (for example, out of a database), if it is possible, only the referred partition, otherwise to return the whole act. Anyway, to make it effective in a browser pointing to the indicated partition, the resolver SHOULD transform the partition ID of each returned URL in a URI fragment; this is obtained appending to the URL the "#" character followed by the partition ID (in the example above, the returned URL will be <URL-document>#art15;par3) Note that the fragment syntax is defined by the media type retrieved, so the above comment is only going to be valid if the partition syntax is compatible with the URI fragment for the media type used!
As I've explained in extensive reviews of this document over its long, overly delayed history, I think there are serious issues with this document and how the "lex" URN namespace will be managed... but I also think it's more important to get it defined and registered, and to let the proponents manage it and prove me wrong.