Hi Ivan, > Let us not argue on the @profile issue:-) I guess what you want to say > is that the URI used for the @profile should be the same as the one used > for the @next values (ie, ....vocab#). Right, since that is how @profile is used already in HTML and XHTML. > The counterargument to that might > be that '...vocab#' clearly refers to the XTHML values and the fact that > these values are really defined by the XHTML group, whereas the current > @profile value is independent. I know this is not a very strong argument. With respect it's a very bad argument. :) It overloads @profile to mean something different to what it means in HTML and XHTML. I would think that the XHTML 2 Working Group would have something to say on that. And my point is that given that we have a URL that 'works' in a way that is consistent with @profile, why not use it. > Let the group decide on that. I wish this was the only major issue to be > solved!:-) It's an important one though, because it is is a reflection of our attitude to XHTML; are we building on top of it, or are we changing whatever we feel like changing? > > since 'absolute URIs' don't have fragment identifiers. I'm using the > > terminology from RFC 3986 very precisely, here, and since the meaning > > of 'absolute URI' runs slightly counter to what one might think it > > means in common parlance, I've removed all references to it from the > > document, and replaced it with 'full URI'. > > > > > > Oops, I missed that one. Let us see what you will come up with:-) Well...it will be exactly that...that the 'base URI' that is used to kick off processing will NOT contain a fragment identifier. Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation.Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 13:12:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2008 13:12:36 GMT