W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > November 2004

RE: [F&O] fn:doc and fragment-ids

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:46:36 -0800
To: Colin Paul Adams <colin@colina.demon.co.uk>, public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20041116034636985.00000002796@amalhotr-pc>

Thank you for your note.

The joint WGs discussed your question on November 9.
The argument to fn:doc is an anyURI (in the form of a xs:string)
that allows a fragment identifier.  We agreed to add words to
clarify this.

The mapping of xs:anyURIs to document nodes is implementation-defined
and is the function of the uri-resolver.

Please let us know if this resolution is satisfactory.

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Colin 
> Paul Adams
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 10:03 AM
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: [F&O] fn:doc and fragment-ids
> 
> 
> I'm am confused as to what is supposed to happen if the argument to
> fn:doc() includes a fragment-id.
> 
> On the one hand, the draft says the argument is an xs:anyURI, 
> passed as an xs:string, so it is legitimate to include a fragment-id.
> On the other hand, the semantics is defined as a mapping of 
> strings onto DOCUMENT nodes, and a fragment-id cannot point 
> to a document node (though it might point to a document element).
> 
> But the way URIs are mapped onto document nodes is not 
> specified. Does this mean it is implementation-defined as to 
> whether the fragment-id is used, or is it an error to include one?
> --
> Colin Paul Adams
> Preston Lancashire
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 11:47:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:37 GMT